Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15579 (AP)

B.Satyanarayana v. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams

WP/8759/2018 · 2025-03-13

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

Special Leave Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010199492018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 8759/2018 Between: B.SATYANARAYANA, S/O POCHAM AGED 51 YEARS, WATCHMAN SV MUSEUM, TTDS, TIRUMALA, R/O TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDTS-III) DEPT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522020, AP ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C SINDHU KUMARI 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Ist, Respondent in not regularizing service of the Petitioner in TTDs w.e.f, 19.10.1994, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the judgment dt.07.02.2006 in WP No.26749 of 1999, confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing SLP No.1167 of 2007, filed by the 1st Respondent, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider and change date of regularization of service of Petitioner notionally 2 w.e.f., 19.10.1994, instead of 23.08.2010, as has been done in respect of all other similarly situated employees in TTDs, including those covered in GOMs No.283 Revenue (Endts.III) Dept., dt.07.07.2017, and with all other consequential benefits, monetary or otherwise.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be disposed of. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:13.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.8759 of 2018 Dt.13.03.2025 Dinesh