SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10392

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH
BANAVATHU RAVI NAIK – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 16298/2025



APHC010327212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 16298 OF 2025 Between:

1. BANAVATHU RAVI NAIK, S/O. SOMLA NAIK, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 4-227, CHEJERLA VILLAGE, NAKARIKALU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

2. PATTANSETTY SUBBA RAO, S/O. BRAHMAIAH, AGE28 YEARS, OCCSHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 1-162, CHEJERLA VILLAGE, NAKARIKALU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

3. SHEIK ABDUL BASHA, S/O. SHEIK SAIDA SAHEB, AGE 31 YEARS, OCCSHIFT OPERATOR, R/O. 4-82/1, DECHAVARAM VILLAGE, NAKARIKALU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

4. KETHAVATH RAJESH NAIK, S/O SUNKYA NAIK, AGE 31 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR, R/O 6-31, RAJA NAIK THANDA, GARIKAPADU, BOLLAPALLE, PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED, (APCPDCL) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, BESIDES GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, ITI ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (APCPDCL), OPERATION CIRCLE, NARSARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED, (APCPDCL), NARASARAOPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT.

5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED, (APCPDCL), ROMPICHERLA, PALNADU DISTRICT.

6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATIONS, ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED (APCPDCL), NAKARIKALLU, PALNADU DISTRICT.

7. M/S HARSHA ENERGIES, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, 1-

533, KAREMPUDI, PALNADU DISTRICT.

8. M/S KRISHNA CHAITHANYA ELECTRICALS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, R/O 1-180, MAIN ROAD,KHAMBAMPADU (POST) NUZENDIA (MANDAL), GUNTUR DISTRICT.

9. DAGGUPATI PULLA RAO, , S/O SAMBAIAH AGED NOT KNOW, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (IN THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER NO.1) R/O KUNALAGUNTA VILLAGE, NAKARIKALLU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT

10. JARAPALA RAJESH NAIK, S/O HANUMA NAIK, AGED NOT KNOW, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (IN THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER NO.2) R/O CHEJARLA THANDA, NAKARIKALLU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

11. SULAM DILEEP KUMAR, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED NOT KNOW, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (IN THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER NO.3) R/O CHAGANTIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, MUPPALA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

12. K RAMAKRISHNA NAIK, S/O MANTHRU NAIK, AGED NOT KNOW, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (IN THE PLACE OF THE PETITIONER NO.4) R/O CHAKRAYAPALEM VILLAGE, BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUMANTH AMIRAPU

2. R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order:-

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the respondents particularly the respondent no’s 4 to 6 orally terminating the petitioners as Shift Operators without issuing any notice and replacing them with respondents 9 to 12 in the place of petitioners as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination, contrary to orders of this Hon’ble Court and violation Principles of Natural Justice apart from violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Shift Operators and pass…”

2. Heard Ms. V.Santhi Sree representing Ms. R.Annapoorna, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the contract employee engaged as a Shift Operator at Chejerla, Kandlakunta and Chakrayapeta Sub-Stations respectively, under t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top