Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5435 (AP)

M SRINIVASA RAO v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/3009/2022 · 2025-06-19

Kiranmayee Mandava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

% APHC010045512022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3009 OF 2022 Between: M. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. (Late) M.Tanda Krishhna Murthy, Age 55 years, Occ: Office Subordinate, O/o. State Regional Library, 0pp. A.C College, Guntur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department ,A.P. Secretariat, Velgapudi, Secretariat, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Anjaneya Towers Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada Town Krishna District. 3. The Director of Public Libraries, Metia Bazar, beside Shivalayam Temple Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The Gazetted Librarian, State Regional Library, 0pp. A.C. College Guntur, Guntur District. ...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 Mandamus, (a) by declaring the entire action of the respondents, the entire action of the 3'^'^ respondent in issuing the present impugned proc Rc.No.A7-A2/2020, dated 15.10.2020, wherein rejecting the, request of the peWioner from exemption from attending duties physically, even though petitioner herein is physically handicapped and severe virus of Covid-19 is as highly ' illegal, arbitrary. unjust, improper, contrary to proceedings Rc.No.145/Aand1/2020, dated 03.07.2020 of the 2"^ respondent as well as respondent as well as in WP No. 14402/2020 and petitioner is entitled for to 30.11.2020 for all the proc Rc.No.28-A3/2020, dated 23.03.2020 of the 3'"^ orders of this Honourable Court dated 19.08.2020 set-a-side or quash the same, b) Further hold that the regularization of the period between 18.05.2020 purposes including pay and allowances, c) And consequently to direct the respondents to re-consider the ; from physically attending duties between genuine claim of the petitioner for exempting 18.05.2020 to 30.11.2020 and purposes by duly taking into consideration regularize said period for all the that the petitioner herein is Physically handicapped, who underwent by-pass surgery. Apart from that, the very Libraries were closed due to Covid-19 vide proc Rc.No.28-A3/2020 dated 23.03.2020 during March by suspending the operation of the 2020 to 04.11.2020, present impugned proc Rc.No.A7- A2/2020, dated 15.10.2020 of the 3^'^ respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 7n99 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to re-consider the genuine claim of the petitioner for exempting from physically attending duties between the period 18.05.2020 to 30.11.2020 and regularize said period for all the purposes by duly taking into Physically handicapped, who the very Libraries were closed consideration that the petitioner herein iIS underwent by-pass surgery. Apart from that due to Covid-19 vide proc Rc.No.28-A3/2020 dated 23.03.2020 during March, 2020 to 04.11.2020, by suspending the operation proc Rc.No.A7-A2/2020, dated 15.10.2020 of the of the present impugned respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010045512022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3009/2022 Between: ...PETITIONER M Srinivasa Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the submissions of Sri Santhapur Sathyanarayana Rao. learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - II. The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to allow the petitioner 2. to work from home. 2 3- It is contended that the ‘Sepoy’ and he Thereafter, under Ex-Service watchman on 30.09.2003 Thereafter his service 2008. During Covid-19 Pandemic petitioner had served in the Military services as discharged from was on medical grounds. men quota, the petitioner In the office of the was appointed as State Regional Library. Subordinate during the Pradesh had was converted into Office year the Government of Andhra framed certain guidelines with offices, under which, the attention to the health regard to the functioning of the concerned authorities Government were directed to give special condition of the employees particularly high risk conditions. pregnant They were allowed to said directions, the petitioner had women, aged and employees with work from home. In connection with the sai made a representation to the authorities S0icl r0pr©s0nt3tion W3s rGi dated M.07.2020 stating that the representation would not apply to the petitioner that he had earlier filed W.P.No also to allow him to work from home. The rejected by the respondent No.4 vide proceedings, petitioner in his It is stated by the said writ petition orders referred to by the respondents. ■ 14402 of 2020. The was disposed of on 19.08.2020 directing the _the request of the petitioner for of the proceedings, dated 03.07.2020 No.3 pursuant to the directions dated '15.10.2020 respondent Nos.3 & 4 to consider exemption to attend duties physically in terms of the respondent No.2. The of this Court passed i respondent impugned proceedings. rejecting the petitioner’ attending to his duties physically. Challenging petition is filed. s request for exemption from the same, the present writ I 3 The respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit stating that the request of the petitioner for granting exemption from working physically would not be justifiable having regard to the nature of the duties that the petitioner is assigned with. The Library consists of 1,44,670 books. The Petitioner as the Office Subordinate has to attend dusting, cleaning and alignment of the books. Apart from the petitioner, there are other five Office Subordinates working in the library. It is further stated that vide G.O.Rt.No.838 General Administration (Political A) Department, dated 18.05.2020, the Government has issued orders for 100% attendance of the Government employees. Despite the said instructions, the petitioner did not attend duties from 18.05.2020 to 30.11.2020. It is stated that the petitioner was informed of with the orders issued by the Government to work from home have not made applicable to the Department of the Public Libraries. The petitioner was accordingly informed of the same vide proceedings, dated 15.10.2020. The request of the petitioner was rejected on account of the fact that the nature of the work assigned to the petitioner would not allow him to work from home and moreover the open heart surgery stated to have been undergone by the petitioner was in the year 2008. From the medical report of the petitioner no abnormalities have been pointed out. Having regard to the nature of duties, the work from home opportunity was declined. 4. \ Perused the record. 5. The order impugned in the writ petition is a reasoned order and the same has been passed after taking into consideration all the issues 6. 4 including the medical Court does not find any infirmity from the order concerns of the petitioner. In view of the same, this under challenge. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disnrissed. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRI NIVAS assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// ScC tiON OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CC’s to GP for Services-ll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies. ssb / HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER WP No.3009 of 2022 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS