IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: :AMARAVAlk(|^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10251 OF 2018 ■<s > o <h Between: 1. M. Subbarayudu, S/o. Chinna Subbaiah, aged about 48 years, 2. G. Chandrudu, S/o. Chennakesavulu, aged about 36 years. 3. K. Radhakrishna, S/o. Rangaiah, aged about 41 years. 4. P. Kirshna Naik, S/o. Lalunaik, aged about 26 years. 5. G. Devarajulu, S/o. Krishnaiah, aged about 44 years. 6. D. Sankaraiah, S/o. Gangaiah, aged about 55 years. 7. B. Ramadevi, S/o. Late Chiriha Tirumalaiah, aged about 34 (All petitioners are working in,#i Bharamaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam in'Vp^lfcdhi Wing, at Kurnool District). years. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The Commissioner, Ehdowrrients Department Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh A.P. Gollapudi rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Dept., Secretafait, Velagapoudi, Guntur District 3. Sri Bharamramba Malfik^fjuha Swamy Devasthanam represented by its Executive Officer, Srisailam, Kurnool District. Srisailam, ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the, nature of writ of Mahdirhus, declaring the in action of the' respondents in not considering the petitioners claim for utilizing their sourcing basis while considering _ to Garden wing of the same devasthanam vide Letter-Rc.No. BI/923/2009, Dt. 10.06.2009 of services on contract basis instead of out similar claim in respect of the Wcuhrbents belongs ■■ .if* Respondent and denying similar benefits to them would 'A amount to '^vtdlaiion of Article 14 and giving step motherly treatment pending the proposal under the guise of correspondence years together and keeping vide RC.NO.B1/12331/13, Dti 29.04:2013 is improper, discrimirratory, unjust and seeking direction cdhsider our. claims for utilizing services on contract basis as was done to* similarly placed persons . lA NO: 1 OF 201« Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court be pleased to direct the 3rd may respondent to submit report pursuant to and direct the 1st respondent to on the representation of the petitioners Rc.No.B1/12331/13, Dt. 29.04.2dt3 pass appropriate orders 12.03.2018. Dt. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIKRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) SRI A SREEKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents Klo 1 & 2: Counsel for the Respondent No.3 The Court made the following order 1 yi^pHCOI 0233262018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10251/2018 Between; M-. Subbarayudu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The Commissioner and Others Counsel for the Petltioner{S); 1. KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2. A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS) The Court made the following; 2 f) THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10251/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “...to issue a writ order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the petitioners’ claim for utilizing their services on contract basis instead of outsourcing basis while considering similar claim in respect of the Incumbents belongs to Garden wing of the same Devasthanam vide Letter Rc.No. B1/923/2009 Dated 10.06.2009 of the 1^’respondent and denying similar benefits to them would amount to violation of Article 14 and giving step-motherly treatment and keeping pending the proposal under the guise of correspondence years together vide Rc.No.BI/12331/13 Dated 29.04.2013 is improper discriminatory unjust and seeking direction consider our claims for utilizing services on contract basis as was done to similarly placed persons andpass... ” \ \ 2. Heard Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for the respondents is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court passed interim order directing the respondents to consider the representation. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities passed a speaking Order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the speaking Order rejecting their claim. 3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the speaking order rejecting the claim which was passed by the respondent- authorities. No Costs. 5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI^OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. 1. The Commissioner, I Vijayawada, Krishna District 2. The Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, MESSENGER) 3. The Executive Officer Devasthanam, Srisailam, RPAD) 4. One CC to SRI KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. One CC to SRI A SREEKANlTH REDDY, Standing Counsel [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies Psk (gsg) Endowrnents Department, A.P. Gollapudi, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District (SPECIAL Sri Bharamramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Srisailam, Kurnool District.(Nos. 1 and 3 by , ? ■ ;• y HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.10251 of 2018 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH NO COSTS