Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Karrothu Narayana Vizinagaram Dist vs The Polepalli Farmers Service on 18 February, 2026
APHC01055632200 Bench Sr.No:-28
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3506]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION NO: 14371 of 2006
Karrothu Narayana Vizinagaram Dist, and Others ...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The Polepalli Farmers Service, Vizinagaram, ...Respondent(s
and Others )
**********
Advocate for Petitioner: KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI
Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI,
GP FOR COOPERATION
CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
DATE : 18th February 2026
ORDER:
Present writ petition came to be instituted questioning the action of respondents in not allowing first writ petitioner back to duties w.e.f.01.12.2005, despite petitioner reporting back after availing sick leave to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
2. Though first writ petitioner sought for interim prayer directing respondents to allow him to join duty, this Court did not pass any such order. Subsequently, first writ petitioner passed away. The legal heirs of first writ petitioner came to be impleaded as writ petitioners 2 to 5 for pursuing cause in the writ petition. Further, they have also filed an application under W.P.M.P. 2 CGR, J W.P. No.14371 of 2006 No.24824 of 2007 seeking amendment of the main writ prayer. By aforesaid amendment, besides laying challenge to the inaction of the respondents in admitting first petitioner back to service w.e.f.01.12.2005, a consequential direction was also sought to pay the salary w.e.f.01.12.2005 along with other attendant benefits on account of death of first petitioner.
3. Heard Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S.Kartheek, learned counsel, representing Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
4. (a) Learned counsel for petitioners, besides referring to the assertions made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended that though first writ petitioner applied for sick leave w.e.f. September, 2004 and sought for extension of the same from time to time, the respondents have not considered the same and on the other hand, when first writ petitioner sought to report back to duty on 01.12.2005, he was denied to be taken back into service.
(b) The claim of first petitioner for sick leave though was substantiated by necessary medical certificates and even first 3 CGR, J W.P. No.14371 of 2006 petitioner tried to cooperate with the respondents by attending before medical board, the request of first petitioner was not acceded to, hence he was denied the pay of salaries w.e.f. 01.12.2005. Since first writ petitioner died pending the writ petition and while he was in service, even the legal heirs of first writ petitioner have made representation to the 1 st respondent for settling the death benefits, which otherwise they were entitled to, however, the same have not been settled even today.
5. (a) Per contra, learned counsel representing respondents 1 and 2, while drawing attention of this Court to the contents of the counter filed on their behalf, contended that petitioner never made any application as such claiming for sick leave much less for the period September, 2004 onwards and the first writ petitioner has been absenting from duties unauthorizedly, therefore, question of respondents denying petitioner being admitted back into service does not arise.
(b) Further, even the respondents have on multiple occasions issued notices calling upon first petitioner to show cause for the alleged unauthorized absence, however, he chose even not to respond to the said notices and also did not cooperate in 4 CGR, J W.P. No.14371 of 2006 attending before designated medical board to assess the medical illness.
(c) Further, it is also contended that as the main prayer in the writ petition was only for allowing first writ petitioner back to duties and no consequential prayer was made, though by way of amendment consequential prayer was sought for after death of first writ petitioner, at this length of time, the said prayer can't be allowed.
6. Perused the record and considered respective submissions.
7. First writ petitioner was working as night watchman with 1st respondent. He stated to have applied for medical leave from September, 2004 onwards. Later, he addressed letter dated 30.10.2005 requesting 1st respondent to sanction sick leave for the period from 01.03.2005 to 30.11.2005 and after recovering, he stated to have attempted to report back to duties on 01.12.2005. Except for the assertions made in para 3 of the writ affidavit, first writ petitioner has not come up with any specifics or placed documentary evidence to show that at the very first instance had come up with appropriate application seeking sick leave. Even 5 CGR, J W.P. No.14371 of 2006 the pleadings suggest that he addressed letter dated 30.10.2005 asking for sick leave for anterior period i.e., 01.03.2005 to 30.11.2005.
8. Whereas the stand of respondents in the counter is that there was never any such application from the petitioner asking for sick leave and the letter that was addressed on 30.10.2005 was only to cover up the unauthorized absence for the past period. Though there are certain other assertions in support of the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of sick leave, in the absence of any specific document, in particular medical record produced, this Court cannot go even venture into the controversial and disputed questions of fact.
9. Though learned counsel for respondents stated that on account of unauthorized absence, they have issued show-cause notices on multiple occasions, the counter is silent as to whether any further action has been initiated against the first writ petitioner for such unauthorized absence. In case no further proceedings were initiated, in view of death of petitioner during service, the petitioners 2 to 5 would be entitled for death benefits otherwise 6 CGR, J W.P. No.14371 of 2006 payable and legitimately to be passed on to the legal heirs, if not already paid.
10. Be that as it may, the first writ petitioner has passed away pending the writ petition and while he was in service. Though the learned counsel for petitioners has made a statement that a representation was made by legal heirs of first petitioner claiming for death benefits, as the details of such representation are not part of the record, by granting liberty to the petitioners to make such representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the orders, the 1st respondent is directed to consider such representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter strictly in accordance with law.
11. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ss