APHC010611322018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29239/2018 Between: 1. DR. M.NAGESH, S/O.M.ANJANEYALU, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O.FLAT NO.302, YAGANTI NICE APARTMENTS, 3/6 VIDYANAGAR, GUNTUR-522 007, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ACHARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR (TEACHING), ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, LAM , GUNTUR-522034, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. DR VALLABHANENEI DAMODAR NAIDU, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, VICE-CHANCELLOR, ACHARYA N.G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, LAM , GUNTUR-522034, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. DR N V NAIDU, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, LAM , GUNTUR-522034, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. DR VALLABHANENI SATYANARAYANA RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, LAM, GUNTUR- 522 034, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. MEKA LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, MEMBER, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, ACHARYA N.G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, LAM , GUNTUR-522034, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. DR J KRISHNA PRASAD JI, S/O.NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DEAN OF AGRICULTURE, ACHARYA N.G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, LAM, GUNTUR-522034, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. DR N V V S D PRASAD, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SENIOR SCIENTIST (ENTOMOLOGY), REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, LAM, GUNTUR-522 034, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S PRANATHI 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 order in Proceeding No.331/Ser.II/A2/2018, dated 13-07-2018, of the 15t respondent as illegal, arbitrary, vitiated by mala fides and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the order in Proceeding No.331/Ser.II/A2/2018, dated 13-07-2018 of the 1st respondent.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, initially the Petitioner filed W.P.No.29239 of 2018 questioning the transfer order, dated 13.07.2018 passed by the 1st Respondent., wherein, this Court passed interim suspension order dated 20.08.2018. Learned counsel would further submit that, though, several representations made by the Petitioner, the Respondent did not allow the Petitioner to join the post, where he was working prior to the transfer. Thereafter, the petition filed by the Respondents in I.A.No.2 of 2018 for vacating the interim order was dismissed vide Order dated 10.12.2018. Subsequently, the Respondent filed appeal in W.A.No.5 of 2019, which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 01.10.2019. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that, inspite of repeated requests made by the Petitioner, the Respondent did 3 not allow him to join the post where he was working prior to the transfer. Thereafter, Petitioner filed C.C.No.16 of 2018. During the pendency of the said Contempt Case, the Respondent passed orders, dated 6.11.2019 and posted the Petitioner as Principal Scientist (Plant Protection) (CAS), DAATTC, Guntur, where he is presently working. As the Respondent has not paid salary from 18.07.2018 to 05.11.2019 the Petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 seeking necessary directions. After perusing the entire material on record, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said Petition vide Order dated 22.11.2021 directing the Respondents to pay salary to the Petitioner from 18.07.2018 to 05.11.2019 within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Learned counsel would finally submit that, in the light of the Order in I.A.No.1 of 2020, dated 22.11.2021, no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be dispose of. 3. Ms.S.Pranathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of, since no further orders are required in this matter. 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:28.03.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.29239 of 2018 Dt.28.03.2025 Dinesh