APHC010000292022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 9/2022 Between: 1. K SATYANARAYANA, S/O LATE K. KAMESWARA RAO, AGED 60 YRS, OCC DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(RETIRED), P.H. SUB- DIVISION TWIN RESERVOIR COMPOUND (P.H. AND M.E. DEPT). RAJAHMUNDRY, H.I.G-101, MIDHILAPUR, VUDA COLONY, PM PALLEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH, FLAT NO. 504 AND 601, GARUDA ENCLAVE, OPP TO MANIPAL HOSPITAL, TADEPALLY, GUNTUR - 522 501. ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering to review the seniority of the applicant by protecting his service in the category of Assistant Engineer as per G.O.Ms.No. 674 dated 7-9-2007 and Circular Memo. Dt 21-6-2007 in-spite of specific instructions issued by the 1st respondent vide Government Memo No.803091/C2/2017-2 dated 25-04-2018 and Memo No.803091/C2/2017 MA and UD dated 17-08-2018, as illegal arbitrary un-constitutional and discrimination, consequently direct the respondents to review the seniority of the applicant in the category of Assistant Engineer in accordance with Rule 33 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996, by protecting his services from March 1981 to June 2008 in the category of Assistant Engineer, and to consider his consequential further promotions of Dy.EE and EE notionally, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: ORDER Sri Ch.Satya Dev Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, speaking orders have been passed and the petitioner intends to challenge the said speaking orders and hence no further orders are required in the writ petition. 2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is closed granting liberty to the petitioner to question the speaking orders. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated 30th day of December, 2025. RR