THE GOVT OF A.P., PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT., AND 3 OTHERS v. G.SUMAN KALYAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
WP/22437/2006 · 2025-09-23
Ninala Jayasurya, Tuhin Kumar Gedela
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45709 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45709 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010073442006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.22437 OF 2006 Between:
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretarait, Hyderabad, and others. ...Petitioners
AND G.Suman Kalyan, Unemployee, R/o. D.No.2-12-5, Vinayakuni Gudi Bazar, Nandulapeta, Tenali, Guntur District. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners :
G.P. FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : ---
The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J)
The present writ petition is filed by the State against the orders dated 04.1.2002 in O.A. No.965 of 1999 on the file of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.
2. The learned Tribunal disposed of the said O.A., with a direction to the Government to reconsider the case of the applicant/respondent for compassionate appointment because of the death of his father while in service and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
2 WP_22437_2006
3. As seen from the docket proceedings, at the time of considering the writ petition for admission in the year 2006, no interim order was granted. About twenty (20) years have gone by. No information is forthcoming from the petitioners as to whether the order of the learned Tribunal has been implemented. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that a communication dated 09.9.2025 was addressed to the petitioners, but no instructions are received so far.
4. In view of the above stated position, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J
_____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J September 24, 2025 vasu