The High Court · 2025

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constltution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare non-payment of salary from January 2012 onwards to the applicant as Village Secretary /Neeradi of Kondapur Village by the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary and permrt the applicant to continue as Neeradi of Kondapur village. ii) direct the Respondents to release salary of the applicant from January 2012 and continue to release the same, duly continuing the applicant as Village Secretary/Neerad i of Kondapur Village, lVaidpally Mandal, Karimnagar District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES -l The Court made the following ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU R,6,]ESHWAR RAO wRIT PETITI ON(TR) No.7L2 0F L7 "20 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government pleadr:r for Services-I, appearing for the respondent. perused the materie I on record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respc n(lents to release the salary of the petitioner from January 2012 on,r ards.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitt€,,.j that the father of the petitioner, late Sri Rajaiah, was working a:; ileeradi (Village Servant) of Kondapur Village and expired on 15. ..1987 while in service. Consequently, the petitioner was appo lted as Neeradi of Kondapur Village vide proceedings No.Ar,t.105/87, dated 01.03.1988. However, while drafting the s;r d proceedings, the name of the father was erroneously typed as 14rrktaiah instead of Rajaiah. The petitioner approached the authoritl€s requesting a correction in the Order of Appointment, but the rrrthorities have not initiated any action, treating it as not a serious rs sue.

4. The counter aFfidavit has been filed on behit f of respondent No.4. They submitted that the enquiry was corrlucted, but the =J findings have not yet been conclusively proved. However, the respondents have disclosed the facts about the petitioner's original claim after conducting the enquiry. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as follows: "During the enquiry in this office, the objected person i.e/ Dhappu Gangadhar s/o Muthiah has produced a copy of his appointment order bearing this office ref. No.A/2205/87, dt:1.03.1988 stating that on his application, the Mandal Revenue Officer (now Tahsildar), Medipatli has conducted interview and selected as per his eligibility with regard to qualiFication and knowledge of Village Servant duties. The petitioner has further stated that he is the Asaldar Neeradi appointed in the vacant post and requested to reject the wrong claim of petitioner Sri Dhappu Gangarajam s/o Rajiah as he is not the Asaldar Village Servant. However the original file (No.A/2205/87) could not be traced to find out correct person appointed at that time, since many records were damaged in the extremist violence carried out on the office located earlier in private buildings. According to the enquiry conducted locally in the village, it is revealed that after the death of one Sri Dhappu Rajalah s/o Ellaiah, Neeradi (Village Servant) in Kondapur (v), Sri Dhappu Gangadhar s/o Muthiah is the appointed person by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, { I /,' \ Medipalli vide proc. No.A/22O5/87, dt: 01.03.1988 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.99, (Plg.wing) dep:, dated 28.01.1988 and not the petitioner Sri t)happu Gangarajam s/o Rajaiah. These findingr; clearly established that the claim of the petitione| t rat his name is wrongly recorded in the records a:; [)happu Gangadhar s/o Muthaiah and his request tc, amend the records in his name as Dhappu Gangarz j,rm s/o Rajaiah, is not correct, as such he is not th,: lrsaldar Village Servant appointed Accordingly the p:l itioner was informed vide this office Memo No.A/;')9/20LI dated 2.7.01.2012 that Sri Dhappu Gangarll-ar s/o f'4uthaiah is the appointed person as Villager Servant (Neeradi) of Kondapur(v) and no alternat: lerson will be allowed to work in his place. A,r;g rieved against such memo, the petitioner has f lr:d the present O.A.(No.5123 of 2013). Therefore it is submitted that the contentio r of the petitioner is not correct with regard to callin 3 him in the village by two names viz., Gangara jarn and Gangadhar and his father also known as Fiajaiah alias Muthaiah. He is also not authorized to r ention his name as Dappu Gangadhar alias Dappu Gangarajam s/o Rajaiah alias Muthaiah be'cre the Hon'ble Tribunal making wrong claim and Te is not an employee appointed by any of the Respordents. The petitioner and the originally appointe: Village Servant (Dhappu Gangadhar s/o Muthaih) a'e two l ) 1,, different persons and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for in his petition."

5. The respondents in proof of their contention, have filed documentary evidence to that eFfect, and this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have cleared the issue of the petitioner. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities have not initiated any action is negative.

6. In view of the above observations, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/ A M LLIKARJUNA RAO IS NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To SA GJ

1. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for t e State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate [OPUCI 2 3. Two CD CoPies e I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1 110712025 ORDER WP(TR).No"712 ot 2017 ,.. -. -. :-.... 'i i 0i,T ?ilfi + DrsMrssrNG THE W.P(TR) WITHOUT COSTS. ,{ q d- I