Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4735 (AP)

V.V.S.Sastry v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/46340/2018 · 2026-06-30

V Sujatha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2026 Date of uploading :10.07.2026 APHC010960102018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 46340/2018 Between: 1. V.V.S.SASTRY, S/O MALAKONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF PROJECT DIRECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. V. LAXMI PRASANNA, W/O V.VS. SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O FLAT NO. 307 (58-8-16) BM. APARTMENT, BESIDE RAJANNA HOSPITAL, SANTHAPETA, VTC. ONGOLE. PETITIONER NO.2 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD, AS LR TO THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.06.2026 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN WP NO.46340 OF 2018. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVOLOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY (SERP), VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. VS,J W.P No.46340 of 2018 2 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, D.R.D.A., PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, D.R.D.A., PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PRAKASAM ...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 an appropriate writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salaries of the petitioner from 01-06-2016 to 13-02-2018 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Article 14,16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.No.010776-010780 of 2017 (Dairy No.23701 of 2017) dated 09-08-2017, Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.21304 of 2017 dated 03-04-2018 and the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.995 of 2018 dated 01-08-2018 and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for the salaries for the period from 01-06-2016 to 13-02- 2018 with an interest of 18 percent per annum with all consequential benefits and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 respondents to forthwith consider the claim of the petitioner and dispose the representations of the petitioner which were made to the 3rd and 5th respondents on 30-05-2018 and 03-08-2018 respectively in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.21304 of 2017 dated 03-04-2018 and the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.995 of 2018 dated 01-08- 2018 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to come on record as legal representative of the deceased sole petitioner/ V.V.S Sastry, as writ petitioner no.2 in the writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass VS,J W.P No.46340 of 2018 3 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A PHANI BHUSHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAVITEJA PADIRI 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) VS,J W.P No.46340 of 2018 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 46340/2018 The Court made the following Order: When the matter was listed on 29.06.2026 and 30.06.2026, there was no representation for the petitioners. Even, today also there is no representation for the petitioners. It shows that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the case. 2. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:01.07.2026 KGR Whether the order is : ✓ Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No ✓ Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No