V. Devendramma, D/O. K. Raghavaiah, v. The State Of Telangana, Represented By Its Principal

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27240 of 2017 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to discharge her duties as Filed Assistant from April, in Mangalagudem Grampanchayat, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District and also not passing any orders on the representation submitted before the 3rd respondent, dated 22.05.2017, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad in law and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties as Filed Assistant regularly in Mangalagudem Grampanchayat, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. 2.

Heard Sri C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 & 3, Smt. R. Padma Rekha, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and perused the material available on record.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant in the year 2006 in Mangalagudem Gram Panchayat, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District and since then, the petitioner is working as a Field Assistant till April, 2016 and in the year 2016, the petitioner stopped attending to the duties of the Field Assistant since she fell sick.

>>2<< 4.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent, dated 22.05.2017, to permit her to attend the duties of the Field Assistant since she is fit to attend the duties, but till now no orders are passed on the said representation and the case of the petitioner was not considered. 5.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Smt. R. Padma Rekha, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the 2nd respondent is the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will submit a fresh application to the 2nd respondent ventilating her grievance and requested this Court to direct the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner.

7.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction:

The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application to the 2nd respondent ventilating her grievance. On such application, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application said to have been submitted by the petitioner, pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, more preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of making application.

>>3<< 8.

Accordingly, 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.

______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 16th August, 2017 KL

>>4<< HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27240 of 2017 Date: 16th August, 2017 KL