APHC010473172004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3611 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-3 [3506] D.harinath Reddy, Chittoor Dist., ...Petitioner Vs. State Of Ap By Secy Hyd 2 Others and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): P VENGALA REDDY, GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV, DAMERLA RAVI KUMAR, B SIVA SANKARA RAO SC For Services to Municipalities in rayalaseema, Nellore, K M MAHENDER REDDY CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 26th February 2026 The Court made the following order: The Present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus calling for the records relating to the Proc.L.Dis.20263/2003-M3 dated 17.02.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent and declare the same as illegal arbitrary 2 and violative of the principles of natural justice so far as dispensing with the services of the petitioner duly following the procedure laid down in I.D. Act, 1947 on the ground that there is no work for him in Punganur Municipality and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as NMR in Punganur Municipality as per the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.76/20000 dated 01.07.2003.” 2. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as daily wage worker on 01.11.1991 with the 3rd respondent-Municipality. After putting in considerable period of service, he made request for regularization of service. As the same was not being considered, he preferred OA.No.5523 of 1998, which came to be disposed of by the Tribunal, vide order dated 06.08.1998, directing the respondents to consider the representation and pass orders having regard to the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with Rules and GOs. Eventually, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner by proceedings dated 27.09.1999, holding that he was not eligible for absorption as Public Health Worker (PH) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.543, dated 07.10.1994 and further, the services of the petitioner came to be disengaged. 3. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred ID.No.76 of 2000 before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court under Section 2(A)2 of ID. Act, 1947. The said ID came to be allowed by holding 3 that the oral termination was bad in law and consequently, the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner back into service with continuity of service; however, with half of the back wages. However, the respondents rather reinstating the petitioner back into service, issued impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2004, yet again terminated the petitioner from service. Assailing the same the present writ petition is filed. 4. While issuing notice, this Court had suspended the operation of impugned proceedings, resultantly the petitioner continued to work with the 3rd respondent in the capacity as he was engaged earlier. Later, petitioner filed WPMP.No.10668 of 2009 claiming for minimum time scale applicable to regular employees, pending disposal of the writ petition. By order dated 11.09.2009, this Court has allowed the application, observing that inasmuch as the petitioner has been continued to work in service since 1991, he should be extended the benefit of minimum time scale as paid to other co-employees in the 3rd respondent Municipality. However, the same was extended with effect from 01.04.2009. 4 5. Heard Sri P. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. Siva Sankara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that by virtue of aforesaid order, the petitioner is not only being continued in service but also being extended the minimum time scale with effect from 01.04.2009. 7. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit. 8. As could be seen from the record and also from counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is undeniable fact that the earlier oral termination came to be set aside by the Tribunal and in fact, direction was given to the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner back into service. The said order attained finality, as there was no challenge laid. Nevertheless, the 3rd respondent, yet again, by impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2004, tried to terminate the services of the petitioner. On face of Tribunal order, the impugned action culminating into filing of present writ petition is completely illegal and arbitrary. 9. This Court, while disposing of WPMPNo.10608 of 2009, has made categorical observation that the petitioner was 5 continued in service, post the order of the Tribunal by virtue of interim orders in the present writ petition and therefore, direction was given to extend the minimum time scale with effect from 01.04.2009. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that in the absence of any challenge to the previous order, the 3rd respondent would not have issued impugned proceedings once again removing the petitioner from service, which is clearly arbitrary exercise of power. 10. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in L.Dis.20263/2003-M3, dated 17.02.2004, are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 26.02.2026 ANS 6 57 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3611 OF 2004 Date: 26.02.2026 ANS