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) 21692

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
K. Veera Swamy – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 23035/2020



APHC010346822020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3329]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 23035/2020 Between:

1. K . VEERA SWAMY,, S/O MASTAN RAO, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O RAJAKULA COLONY, VETAPALEM, CHUNDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE (EL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE STATE OF A P, REB.BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. T HE GUNTUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, REP.BY.ITS PRINCIPAL, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT

4. T HE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ , Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Memo of the 1st respondent Vide Memo No 1173763/E1/2020, dt 03-10-2020 and consequential memo R.c.No.2423/D1/2020, dated 14-10-2020 in not regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his joining illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondents in paying minimum pay scale to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and to pay all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his joining i.e., 1-4-1986, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.23035 of 2020 This Court made the following

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Memo of the 1st respondent Vide Memo No:1173763/E1/2020, dt: 03.10.2020 and consequential memo Rc.No.2423/D1/2020, dated 14.10.2020 in not regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his joining illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondents in paying minimum pay scale to the petitioner as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner and to pay all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his joining i.e., 01.04.1986, and pass…”

2. The case of the petitioner succulently is that the petitioner filed W.P.No.19938 of 2019 seeking the inaction of the respondent in not regularizing his service from the date of joining of the year 1986 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, and to declare the action of the respondents in not issuing any proceedings pursuant to the proceedings vide Rc.No.39178/P1/2015, dt: 12.04.2016 as illegal, arbitrary consequently direct the respondents to regularize petitioner‟s service and to pay for all the period of service and with all the monetary benefits to the petitioner. Further, the respondents represented that there are prepared to look into the issue and consider the case of the petitioner as per applicable law and on its own merits. After hearing both the parties, this Hon‟ble Court, passed orders dated 24.02.2020 disposing of the Writ Petition, the operative portion of which reads as under:

“For all the above reasons, this Court is of the opinion that keeping writ petition pending, is not really necessary. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, since the requisite information has already been furnished by the 3rd respondent on 12.04.

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