The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one.in the nature of Writ of mandamus, to declare the impugned orders of removal issued by the 4th respondent vkje order vide No. HRy€GS/2017, Dated 26-2-2o17\coned. year is 2018, erroreously mentioned as 2017) is illegal, unlust, arbitrary and Violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 31 'l of the Constitution of lndia and consequenfly set aside the same with a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into servirre with all consequential monetary benefits including continuity of service. IA NO i 1 0F 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cotrrt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned teminatiofl orCers issued vide No' HR/EGS/201 7, Dated 26-2-2O17 (correct year is 2018, erroneously mentioned as 2017) ot the 4th respondent with a direction to reinstate the: petitioner into service forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. VENKATASWAMY Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI R. PADMA REKHI., SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR MGNREGS The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I T ! I i t t THE IION'BI,E SRI JUSTTCE NAMAVAREPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITIOI{ No.899 o12024 ORDER order No.HR/EGS/2017, dated The present Writ Petition is hled to declare the impugned orders of removal issued by the 4th respondent vide 26.O2.2O17\correct Year ls as 2Ol7\ as illegai and the same with a direction to the service with all the petitioner into 2018, erroneouslY mentioned consequentlY set aside respondents to reinstate consequential monetary benehts including continuitY of servlce 2 Heard Sri M. Venkata Swamy' learned counsel for the learned Government Pleader for Services-[l' petltloner, appearing for resPondent Nos' 1 to 3, and R. Padma Rekha, learnedSpecialCMGNREGS,appearingforrespondentNo 4

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitloner !\:as appointed as a Field Supervisor in the year 20O5 While so, vide orders stated 27 'lO '2017 ' the third respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that petitioner =:-s:{I}-=r=. 2 did not attend the review meeting which was conducted on 27 .t0.20r7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner furthe'r submits that on 26.10.2017, petitioner suffered from fever, vomiting and motions and her family members admitted her at Sri Teja Clinic and the said fact was informed to her immediate superior Officer Sri Balayya over telephone. Her absence was only' due to ill-health, but not an intentional one' She submitted a detailed explanation through 4th respondent on OZ .ll.2Ol7 r.n ith a request to withdraw the orders of suspension. Since she did not receive any resl)onse from him, she made another representation to the 3'd respondent on ll.l2.2\l7 rvith a request to reinstate her into service, as her absence u.as neither intentional nor wanton.

5. Learned counsel lor the petitioner further submits that the 4th respondent issued impugned order Vide No HR/TGS 20 17, dated 26.02.2017 (correct year is 2018, erroneously mentioned as 20 17), removing petitioner's r;ervice as Field Assistant, the reason assigned in the impugned orders is that' the 3't respondent directed to pass orders removing the petitioner's service as she did not show any progress in the field u'ork ancl she is neglect in her duties. Irurther, directed i I I i I i t \ 3 tlre petitioner to submit an appeal against the said removal order before.the 3'd respondent within 3o days'

6. Learned c"ouns,el for tlre petitiorrer further submits that the petitioner submitted an appeal before the 3'd respondent with detailed information and the said appeal dated O8.O3.2O23 received by the 3'd respondent and acknowledged the same. However, the 3'd respondent did not choose to pass any orders on her appeal. As such, the petitroner submitted reminder representations, dated 14'03'2018 and 23'03'2O18 respectively and the sarne are pending with the 3'd respondent and prayed to direct the 3'd respondent to dispose of the same' trarned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the

7. submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner'

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for respectirre parties, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the appeals preferred by the pctitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (O8) u'eeks from ttre date of receipt of a copy of this order' g.withtheabovedirection,thiswritPetitionisdisposedof' There shall be no order as to costs' 4 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. //TRUE coPY// SD/.M. NAGAMANI AsstqrtNr REGiSTRAR / ;Ur,oN oFFtcER - To, '1. The Principal Secretary' Rural Development Departme't' State of Telangana' 2. Te Commissioner of Panchayat Raj' and Rural Devtllopment Department' Secretariat, HYderabad' Hyderabad

3. The District Collector' Wanaparthy District' 4. The District Rural Development Officer' DRDA' Wanapzrrthy' 5. One CC to SRI M VENKATASWAMY' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll' High Court for the State of Telangana at 7. One CC to SRI R PADMA REKHA' Special Counsel for MGNREGS [OPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies w Hyderabad. [OUT] MP LS I I I I I i i 1 ; ! ; I I HIGH COURT DA l'ED:0710812025 i,,5 i') ?3sTPffi \ :. -,'..-'al ti:C ORDER WP,No.899 of 2024 i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ -(("4 VL-