Ponnana Sundara Rao, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.19575 of 2017 Date:16.06.2017 Between:

Ponnana Sundara Rao, S/o.Ramamurthy, Aged 28 years, Occ: Services, R/o. Sowdam Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District .. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and others .. Respondents The Court made the following order:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.19575 of 2017 ORDER:

Heard. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2.

The claim of the petitioner is that he has been working as Field Assistant since the year 2013 under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) in Sowdam Gram Panchayat in Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. It appears that the contract of the petitioner was not renewed in the year 2015 on the ground that he did not achieve the Labour Budget target of 75% in the said Gram Panchayat. However, on due satisfaction, the District Collector and District Programme Coordinator, MGNREGS, the 3rd respondent, passed orders on 09.11.2016 directing his subordinates to admit the Field Assistant into duty. The petitioner was also directed to give joining report to the concerned Programme Officer.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said orders are not complied with causing undue hardship and suffering to the petitioner for no fault of him. Even as seen from the orders, dated 09.11.2016, the 3rd respondent directed the Programme Officer, MGNREGS, Kotabommali Mandal, the 5th respondent, to admit the petitioner into duty, but in spite of the same, he was not admitted. 3.

These contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by learned Standing Counsel for MGNREGS and, on

instructions, he submits that the said orders are in force and are required to be complied with.

4.

Having regard to the said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to enforce the orders of the 3rd respondent, dated 09.11.2016, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from today and he should also ensure to take action against the persons responsible for not complying with the directions of the 3rd respondent and his own orders. Further, the 5th respondent shall be personally responsible in enforcement of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent. He shall also appropriately report to the competent authority on the action of the subordinate officers in not complying with the directions of the 3rd respondent. 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:16.06.2017 KH