APHC010349502026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] THURSDAY, THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 863 OF 2026 Between: 1. U PARVATHI, W/O. MADAN MOHAN BABU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, EX-MULTI PURPOSE HEALTH ASSISTANT (F), R/O IV 29- A24-D, INDIRA NAGAR, MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH - 517 325. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTRUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, A.P. GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH -521 225. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, A.P., GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, A.P - 521 225. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P - 517 001 5. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT AND GENERAL (A AND E), A.P., GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P - 520 002. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: (Per NJS,J) The petitioner in W.P.No.12076 of 2023 aggrieved by an order of dismissal dated 06.04.2026, filed the present Writ appeal. 2) Appellant/writ petitioner was originally appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in Kadapa District and was working in Primary Health Centre, Railway Koduru. Vide proceedings dated 03.09.1985, she was transferred from Railway Koduru of Kadapa District to Chittoor District. Thereafter, she was posted to Primary Health Centre, B.Kothakota, vide proceedings dated 18.11.1985. After working there upto 10.05.1986, Appellant proceeded on medical leave and did not report to duty. Alleging that she is not allowed to duty she filed M.A.No.334 of 1995 in OASR No.891 of 1995 in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, seeking to declare that the said action of respondents therein in refusing to permit her to join duty as ANM as illegal arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions. The Tribunal dismissed M.A.No.334 of 1995 vide order dated 27.09.1999, on the ground that she approached the Tribunal with a delay of four (04) years, as a consequence of which, the O.A. was also rejected at that stage. 3) Subsequently, she filed another O.A.No.562 of 2012 for sanction of pension and pensionary benefits with effect from 01.12.1974 till the date of her superannuation i.e., 11.08.2008. As the representation made by her was rejected by order dated 28.12.2011, the Tribunal gave liberty to her to file a fresh O.A., against the said order. Accordingly, O.A.No.7096 of 2014 was filed. Learned Tribunal while recording a finding that not only prayer for setting aside rejection order dated 28.12.2011, the consequential prayer regarding her absence from duty from 11.05.1986 to 11.08.2008 are hopelessly barred by limitation, that she simply abandoned her service with effect from 11.05.1986 onwards, dismissed the O.A. The said order attained finality as the same was not challenged. 4) Notwithstanding the said dismissal order, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad vide complaint No.1794/2016/B2 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 10.06.2016 with a direction to respondent authorities therein to rebuild the Service Register of the complainant and also to process the retirement benefits, subject to her eligibility, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Order. Pursuant to the said directions, consequential proceedings dated 16.09.2016 were issued. Be that as it may. 5) Appellant/writ petitioner through Memo dated 17.04.2018 was informed that she is not entitled for any pensionary benefits except drawal of savings GPF, GIS, etc., due to her unauthorized absence from 11.05.1986 (Total unauthorized absence period is 22 years 3 months and 21 days), that A.P. Leave Rules does not provide E.O.L. for such a long period of absence. Further, vide proceedings dated 09.08.2019 the said position was reiterated and informed to the appellant. Under the said circumstances, she approached the Hon’ble Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh by filing Complaint No.891/2019/B1. The Hon’ble Lokayukta while observing that the complainant is challenging the proceedings dated 09.08.2019, closed the complaint vide order dated 13.12.2021, by referring to orders in O.A.No.7096 of 2014. 6) Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the Hon’ble Lokayukta, as also proceedings dated 09.08.2019, the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.12547 of 2022, but withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh Writ Petition on the premise that the State Government was not made a party. Accordingly, the liberty was afforded vide orders dated 19.04.2023. Pursuant to the said liberty W.P.No.12078 of 2023 was filed, which ultimately came to be dismissed vide Order under Appeal. 7) Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner made submissions to impress upon the Court that the order of learned Writ Court is not sustainable for the various grounds raised in the Appeal. It is his submission that the respondents having implemented the orders of Hon’ble Upa-Lokayuta dated 10.06.2016 are not justified in issuing proceedings dated 09.08.2019 impugned in the Writ Petition and the learned Writ Court has not appreciated the same in correct perspective. He submits that the respondents, having refixed the pension and increased it from to time were not justified in depriving the same to the appellant, that too without notice. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the order under challenge. 8) Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 9) At the outset, it may be pertinent to point out that the appellant/writ petitioner as noted earlier, approached the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal and suffered adverse orders. It is not in dispute that the said orders had attained finality. Instead of seeking recourse to law, the appellant/writ petitioner approached, at first instance approached the Hon’ble Upa-Lokayuta, who entertained the complaint and granted directions and the same are without jurisdiction. Though it appears that the orders were implemented, subsequently Memo dated 17.04.2018 and proceedings dated 09.08.2019 impugned in the Writ Petition were issued. The complaint, in this regard made to the Hon’ble Lokayukta this time was not entertained and it was closed on 13.12.2021. 10) Learned Writ Court after examining the matter, with reference to the orders in O.A.No.7096 of 2014 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal rejecting the appellant / writ petitioner’s claim for regularization of the period from 11.05.1986 to 11.08.2008, dismissed the Writ Petition holding that after lapse of more than 2½ decades and that too after dismissal of the Original Application without challenging the same, before any competent forum, the appellant/writ petitioner cannot claim monetary or pensionary benefits as a matter of right. The conclusion arrived at by the Writ Court with reference to the material on record to the said extent does not suffer from any illegality. The fixation of pension, if any, in the light of the orders rejecting the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner by the Administrative Tribunal referred to supra itself is not tenable and therefore withdrawal of the same, without opportunity cannot be treated as fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, immediately on withdrawal of the said benefit vide proceedings dated 17.04.2018 etc., impugned in the Writ Petition, the appellant/petitioner did not avail remedies in accordance with law, but made a complaint to the Hon’ble Lokayukta in the year 2021 and the same was rightly not entertained by the Hon’ble Lokayukta. It may also pertinent to mention here that the appellant/petitioner having inter alia challenged the said order of Hon’ble Lokayukta vide W.P.No.12547 of 2022, withdrew the same on the ground mentioned above and curiously filed fresh W.P.No.12078 of 2023 with a different prayer. Be that as it may. 11) Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, against factual background of the case, this Court see no good ground to interfere with the order under appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 12) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date: 01.10.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 863 OF 2026 Date:01.10.2026 Ssv