Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38867 (AP)

SRI N. NAGARAJU, ANANTAPUR DIST. v. THE GOVT.OF A.P.,REP.BY PRL.SECRETARY,HOUSING,HYD.,&ANR.

WP/11938/2012 · 2025-01-22

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010780732012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No: 11938 OF 2012 Between: N.Nagaraju …Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh Housing (RH-1) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad Rep. by Principal Secretary and another. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Challa Siva Sankar Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Sri E.V. Jagannadha Rao Ld. Standing Counsel For A.P.State Housing Co-Op. Ltd., 2. M.Ravindranath Reddy Ld. Standing Counsel for APSHC 3. Ld. Govt. Pleader for Housing -2- W.P. No.11938 of 2012 The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the date of regularization of the petitioner from 01.04.2003 in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and consequential promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 01.04.2008 and seeks a direction to regularize his services as Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 01.04.2008. 2. This Court, vide order dated 24.04.2012 granted interim direction as prayed for. 3. The petitioner made a representation on 09.05.2010 to the respondents seeking to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Executive engineer with effect from 01.04.2008 on par with his juniors. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents passed a detailed order, dt.30.05.2012, rejecting the case of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner. The learned standing counsel further -3- W.P. No.11938 of 2012 submitted that the petitioner also attained the age of superannuation. 5. In view of the subsequent developments, no further orders need be passed in the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed, leaving open to the petitioner to take steps if so advised. No costs. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV