A CHINNA RAO, EAST GODAVARI DIST v. DT COLLECTOR DT PROGRAM COORDINATOR NREGS E G DT 3, NATIONAL RURAL
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature the first Respondents in of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of terminating the services of the Petitioner by vide Proceedings Rc. No. A1/122/DWMA/2008 dated 29-11-2012 as illegal , arbitrary, unjust, set aside the same and consequently, direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 19160 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 4th Respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's Appeal dated 20-12- 2012 of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above Writ Petition IA NO: 4 OF 2013(WPMP 194155 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 47665 OF 2014 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 amend the prayer as follows:-to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner vide Rc. No.A1/122/ DWMA/ 2008 dated 29-11-2012 and Appeal before Fourth respondent by vide Proceedings No.14266/ CRD/ 959/SPM(DM)/2012 dated , arbitrary, unjust and set aside the same and 17-09-2014 as illegal consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice. " instead of "I therefore, pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner , arbitrary, vide Rc. No.A1/122/DWMAJ 2008 dated 29-11-2012 as illegal unjust, set aside the same and consequently, direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.K V RAJASREE Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.15822 OF 2013
ORDER:
There is no representation for the petitioner today.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the writ petitioner has passed away during pendency of the writ petition. It is also submitted that the contract period of engagement of the petitioner had also expired long back.
Recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 09.03.2026 KGM 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.15822 of 2013 Dated 09.03.2026 KGM
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 09 Mar 2026. The bench was HARINATH N.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.