✦ High Court of India · 28 Aug 2025

Radharapu Tirupathi. S/o late Ch-andraiah v. Rurat Department

Case Details High Court of India · 28 Aug 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
28 Aug 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,264 words

Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, particularly respondents. No. 5 to reinstate the petitioner as Field Assistant of Sitarampur Village of Chigurumamidi lvlandal, Karimnagar District and allow the petitioner to perform his duties arid to pay the arrears to the petitioner by considering the Appellate authority/ District Collector's reinstatement order vide proceeding. No. W7l 1512020. Dated. 17-12-2022, representations, dated. 2S-10-2024, 01-11-2024 and 27-06-2025' pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV Counsel for the Rgspondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEvELoPMENT nsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Ms R'PADMA REKHA Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT P TI I 263 oF2o2s ORDER: with the consent or both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage.

2. Heard Mr. Chalakani Venkat yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government pleader for panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. R. padma Rekha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant in the year, 2009 and since then he had been working in the department. However, it is alleged that on 12.03.2020, the 3.d respondent, without conducting any enquiry, without issuing any notice, and without providing an opportunity to submit an explanation. terminated the petitioner from service due to political reasons, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the law.

3.1. Learned counser for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the said termination order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the District Collector (the appellate authority) on 27.03.2020, foilowed by further representations on t r l-L &r s,.r.- :ri- :,., J Z of the aPPellate authoritY- reinstatement order vide 17.12.2022 and Pursuant to z2.r\.zozzto the DRDA project Director and on l5'03'2021 to the MPDO, Chigurumamidi' requesting them to examine the matter and into account the facts and reinstate him into service by taking counsel for the Petitioner circumstances of the case' Learned submits that, based on the order specifically, the District Collector's Proceedings No' W7l19/2020' dated 29.t0.2024, OL':rl'2024' and the petitioner's representations dated has aPProached the concerned 27.06.2025, the Petitioner are not considering his case for authorities. However, theY reinstatement' Aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in considering his representations and by the arbitrary termination from servlce, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the approPriate relief, including present writ Petition ' seeking reinstatement into service' Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submitted 4 as follows: i. Sri Radharapu Thirupathi' S/o' Late Chandraiah' Field Assistant at Seetarampur Village, Chigurumamidi Mandal' was initially removed from service in 2009 by the MPDo, Chigurumamidi, due to his misbehaviour. ii. He was again removed from service in 2O2O based on an enquiry report and comptaints regai-ding misbehaviour and use of inappropriate language with women wage seekers' / J iii. pursuant to an appeal, he was reinstated by the Collector/DpC_MGNREGS vide proceedings No. W7/lg/2O2Ot 77.72.2022, with a warning to be careful in the future. District iv. Despite clear instructions issued vide Memo dated 11.11.20 24, the petitioner failed to report back to duty and was not available in Seetarampur Village of Chigurumamidi Mandal. v. The pOlMpDO, Mpp, Chigurumamidi, has reported that there is a strong resistance from villagers and women wage seekers of Seetarampur Village against the petitioner,s reinstatement. I t I vi. A resolution to this effect was passed in the Special Grama Sabha held on O9.03.2025, in connection with International Women,s Day, denying the petitioner's continuation as Fierd Assistant in seetarampur Village. vii. The request of the petitioner is not tenable for continuation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law.

6. Taking into learned counsel consideration the submissions made by the for the respective parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits oF the case, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioner,s representation dated 27.O6.2025, in pursuant to the order dated 17.12.2022 issued by the 3d respondent, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with raw, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4

7. With the above direction' this Writ Petition There shall be no order as to costs' is disPosed oi. Miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstandclosed. //rRUE CoPY// SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR I sEcrrdribtrrcEn I State of Telangana at Hyderabad ' 'r. ,n" Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Rural Department' Secretariat' 2. ;h;6;i;;i-";";, P;;til;vatn ial and Rural Development State or 3. il;';H#iRrl'ri oJiJrip'untal Asencv cumAppellate Authoritv cum - +. int'noaiti"nii o'.tri"[ nriZiDevetopm6ntal officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Telanqana at HYderabad ' ol.trlrcoriector, Karimnigar, Karimnagar District' \ District. ii,'"'ilioorr. officer Cum Mandal Parishad Developmental officer' cfriouruft amlAi Manda, Karimnagar District' ilBEds'il' G p' F6a FnnoirnVi i neJ AN o qu.s* DEV ELoPtt/ E Nr, H i gh c"rritir. til state of tetangana at Hyderabad. [oUT] 6i"' Uc' tii's ni duAr-nxn r'il vE N xnf YADAV' Adv^ocate [o PU c] il; cd io rtrt n.pAovA REKHA, Advocate (oPUC) . Two CD CoPies 5 6 7 d I SA GJP / HIGH COURT DATED:2810812025 I .aa C a4 l.rL Sf4 14: I I O2 SEPM O6 .(tr). I (-,rf--D 6 .t> o { ,-/ ORDER WP.No.21263 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. &

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments