Item No.2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
W.A.No.1216 OF 2018
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ
petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2018, passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.12685 of 2018 filed by him for
issuance of a writ of Mandamus, for declaring as illegal, the order dated
11.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.2/District Collector,
Mahabubnagar, removing him from service and directing the respondent No.7/Mandal Parishad Development Officer to ensure that the charge of the records in the Mandal is handed over by him at once.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner states that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition, inasmuch as the appellant/writ petitioner was a regular employee working under the respondents and he has been removed from service without following the due process. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge observed that as per the proceedings dated 30.08.2017, the appellant/writ petitioner had joined in the place of one Mr. B.Srinivasulu who was facing a departmental enquiry and later on, the said person was reinstated into service in terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In view of the reinstatement of Mr.B.Srinivasulu, the appellant/writ petitioner, who was working as a Mate and was permitted to work as a Senior Mate as a W.A.No.1216 of 2018 Page 1 of 2 2 stop gap arrangement, was directed to handover the charge. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed as meritless.
3. We have repeatedly requested learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner to substantiate his submission that the appellant/writ petitioner was working as a Senior Mate even earlier to the issuance of the proceedings dated 30.08.2017. He has not been able to demonstrate the same. Instead, learned counsel alludes to certain payment orders dated 03.07.2017 issued by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) which reveals that a honorarium of Rs.10,332/- was being paid to the appellant/writ petitioner as a Field Assistant. The appellant/writ petitioner has not been able to establish that he was ever employed by the respondents as a Senior Mate for him to claim that he was wrongfully removed from service and is entitled to reinstatement.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed as meritless along with the pending applications, if any, while upholding the impugned order.
_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ ______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 06.07.2021 Lrkm/pln W.A.No.1216 of 2018 Page 2 of 2