Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 24008 (AP)

THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUN.EMP.UNION,REP.BY PRESIDENT,VSK v. THE STATE OF A.P.,REP.BY PRL.SECRETARY,MA&UD.,HYD., & 2 OTRS

WP/10494/2013 · 2026-03-02

Harinath N

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010472262013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10494 OF 2013 Between: 1. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUN.EMP.UNION,REP.BY PRESIDENT,VSK, VISAKHAPATNAM, TENNETI VISWANADHA BHAVAN, GVMC MAIN OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT M.ANAND RAO, REGD.NO.3392/69. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PRL SECRETARY MAUD HYD 2 OTRS, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PRI SECRETARV, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the employees health care fund scheme ordered vide GOMs.No.184, HM and FW (M2), dt.14.8.2012 to the employees of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to extend the benefit of GOMs.No.184, HM and FW (M2), dt.14.8.2012 to the employees of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as done in the case of other Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the State IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 13024 OF 2013 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 1st respondent to pass orders on the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.002421/2013/C7, dt.6.3,2013 , pending final disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10494 OF 2013 ORDER: 1. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the benefits contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.184 have already been extended to the petitioner and also placed on the record the relevant proceedings on record. 2. In view of the aforesaid submission and recording the same, this Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 03.03.2026 BSK 163 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10494 OF 2013 Date: 03.03.2026 BSK