V.A.Vinod Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Writ Petition Nos.2283 & 2293 of 2016 Date:29.3.2016 Writ Petition No.2283 of 2016 Between:

V.A. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Anantapuram District.

.....Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Hyderabad and others.

... Respondents

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Writ Petition Nos.2283 & 2293 of 2016 PC:(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The prayers made in these petitions are similar. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 2283 of 2016 reads thus:

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the respondent No.4 vide Proc. No. A1/5653/2014-5, dated 28.12.2015 in allocating the petitioner to the State of Telangana Housing Corporation as arbitrary, illegal, without any competence and in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of Section 82 of A.P. State Organization Act, 2014 and direction issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Lr. No. 119/CSP/2015-3, dated 24.7.2015 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the A.P. State Housing Corporation with continuity of service, pay and allowances and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 2293 of 2016, and in paragraph-10 thereof, they have stated that the respondents do not have intention to send the employees, who are working in Andhra Pradesh Unit to Telangana Unit forcibly. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they were relieved at the request of Telangana Unit. The petitioners also do not intend to go to Telangana Unit and they would like to continue to work in Andhra Pradesh Unit. In view thereof, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on instructions, and in view of the averments made in paragraph-10 of the

counter affidavit, submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 will allow the petitioners to continue to work in Andhra Pradesh Unit. In other words, he submits that the orders dated 28.12.2015, whereby, the petitioners were relieved, and which are impugned in the present writ petitions, shall not be acted upon. His statement is recorded. In view thereof, nothing further survives in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are disposed of as infructuous. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed.

____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ __________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J 29th March, 2016 Pnb