APHC010683292012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25978/2012 Between: Mayans Nissar Ahmad Khan ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV HN, J W.P.No.25978_2012 2 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in not reinstating him. The petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator-cum-Accounts Assistant on 27.07.2009 on a contract basis. 2. The petitioner worked till 31.01.2008. He was injured in an incident that occurred on 16.01.2008, where a trespasser entered the MPDO office, assaulted the petitioner, and attempted to damage the computers for not sanctioning ten water pits. A case was registered against the trespasser. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered injuries and applied for medical leave from 03.12.2008 to 02.03.2009. It is also submitted that the petitioner underwent operation kidney surgery on 01.04.2010 and was advised to take rest. 3. The petitioner requested the respondents for assign him duties by submitting an application dated 02.11.2010. However, there was no response from the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents neither passed any orders of termination nor took any decision on the petitioner’s application dated 02.11.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner was injured in an incident of vandalism by a trespasser, and such HN, J W.P.No.25978_2012 3 injuries ought to be treated as having been suffered in the discharge of his duties. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner and accommodated him. 4. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis for a temporary period and that his contract was not extended. The petitioner was not on duty from 03.12.2008 to 25.12.2011. The contract of the petitioner was automatically terminated as he did not report for duty. That apart, the contract was for a specific period of time, and its non-renewal would ipso facto, render it void. It is also submitted in the counter-affidavit that respondents, vide proceedings dated 02.12.2013, rejected the plea of the petitioner, and the said proceedings have not been challenged. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, the subsequent proceedings dated 02.12.2013 would bring finality to any fresh cause of action for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner, insofar as it pertains to directing the respondents to reinstate him, cannot be granted by this Court in light of the said proceedings dated 02.12.2013. However, it is left open to the petitioner to take steps if he is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 02.12.2013. HN, J W.P.No.25978_2012 4 6. With these observations, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 17.02.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.25978_2012 5 150 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.25978 of 2012 Date: 17.02.2025 NKA