P. Ramakrishna, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

Between:

P. Ramakrishna, S/o. Maalingappa, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Field Assistant (terminated), R/o. Veligonda Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District.

.. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner was a Field Assistant. By proceedings, dated 21.01.2015, order of removal was passed on the allegations levelled against him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner stated to have preferred representation in the form of an appeal to the District Collector, Anantapur District (3rd respodnent). Alleging that so far, no orders are passed on the appeal filed by the petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

2. As per the scheme of recruitment to the post of Field Assistant, a channel of appeal is provided against the order passed by the Project Director (F.A.C.), District Water Board Agency, Anantapuram District (4th respondent) to the District Collector, Anantapur District (3rd respondent).

3. Though Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Special Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 states that formal appeal is not filed, but only the grievance is raised in Praja Vaani and the same cannot be treated as an appeal, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a Field Assistant and may be the authorities cannot expect the persons working as Field Assistant to have the same kind of knowledge and obtaining proper advise to prefer an appeal in proper form and that on the technicality cannot ignore to consider the grievance. Obviously, the grievance of the petitioner is against the removal as Field Assistant and endorsement of the Praja Vaani would disclose that the grievance agitated by him was against removal. Further more, the petitioner has filed a detailed representation subsequently, a copy of which is enclosed along with the writ petition.

4. Therefore, the District Collector/District Project Coordinator, MGNREGS, DWMA, Anantapur, Anantapur District (3rd respondent), is directed to consider the appeal against the order of removal of the petitioner as Field Assistant and pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 18th November, 2015 KL

Date: 18th November, 2015 KL