APHC010347982018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16076/2018 Between: 1. CH. NARASIMHA RAJU, S/O CH. SATYANARAYANA RAJU AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. FAMILY WELFARE WORKER COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER CHINTALAPUDI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, CHINTALAPUDI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT 4. THE COLLECTOR / SELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(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, to declare the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 herein in not considering the Medical Leave Application dated 02-04-2018 of the petitioner by not permitting the petitioner to join the duties at the 3rd Respondent office as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Subordinate Service Rules and consequently direct the Respondents 2 and 3 herein to forthwith consider the Medical Leave 2 Application dated 02-04-2018 of the petitioner by permitting the petitioner to join the duties at the 3rd Respondent Office.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, in the light of the interim order passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018 dated 01.05.2018, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 considered the representation of the Petitioner and have passed an order by rejecting his claim. Learned counsel would further submit that the petition may be disposed of and liberty may be given to the Petitioner to challenge the said order. 3. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of rejection of his claim as per the governing rules and law. 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:11.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.16076 of 2018 Dt.11.03.2025 Dinesh