Y.Sree Ramulu, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5661 OF 2015 DATED 12TH JULY, 2016 BETWEEN y. Sree Ramulu ....Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Endowments, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.

..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5661 OF 2015 ORDER:

The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the Endowments Department at Kadapa. It appears that the second respondent issued a Memo to the third respondent on 13.10.2014 directing payment of salaries to the employees who went on strike by referring it as Encashment of leave/Advance Encashment of leave or other eligible leave. The third respondent in his reply dated 29.10.2014 stated that he himself participated in the strike and as per the orders of the second

respondent, he informed all the Executive Officers and staff who have participated in the strike for payment of salaries and accordingly some of the Executive Officers were given the two months'

advance salary as per G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 04.02.2014. Some of the Executive Officers who have not participated in the strike refused to take the advance salaries and they demanded regular salaries. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent complained to the second respondent stating that seven officers were pressurizing him with their political influences and unnecessary comments and causing mental agony to him.

However, when the third respondent passed the order on 11.02.2015 contrary to the reply dated 29.10.2014 according permission to the seven Executive Officers to draw regular pay and allowances for the period from 13.08.2013 to 17.10.2013 even though they participated in the Samikyandhra agitation and forcing the petitioner to sign on the bills to pay the salaries, the present Writ Petition is filed.

This Court while ordering notice before admission on 28.4.015 granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 11.2.2015.

The petitioner is stated to be a visually challenged person. He submitted a representation on 20.02.2015 to the second respondent, who having received the same, did not pass any order. A reading of the impugned order shows that the third respondent passed an order on 11.2.2015 pursuant to the Memo issued by the second respondent granting permission to draw regular salaries for the period from 13.08.2013 to 17.10.2013 to

seven Executive Officers who were working in different temples in Kadapa District. The petitioner being a subordinate to the third respondent should have followed the said order, instead he approached this Court and obtained an order of stay of all further proceedings. It is not known as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dated11.2.2015. In the circumstances, this Court finds no valid ground, much less a substantial ground to interfere with the order of the third respondent dated 11.2.2015 which is an administrative order. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs. -------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 11th JULY, 2016.

Msnrx