Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/23367/2026 of GADDAM SIVA RANI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 30 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 23367/2026 Between: Gaddam Siva Rani ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
APHC010428392026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 23367/2026
Between:
Gaddam Siva Rani
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
WRIT PETITION No.23367 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not allowing the Petitioner from discharging her duties as Anganwadi Worker at Primary Health Centre without issuing any notice or enquiry as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 05.12.2025 and posted at Respondent No.4’s PHC i.e., Nagirimadugu Primary Health Center, Vayalpad Mandal, Annamayya District. While so, the Respondent No.4 directed the Petitioner orally not to attend the work as her services are not required. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submits that certain irregularities were noted against the Petitioner and an enquiry is being conducted with regard to certain misconduct of the Petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
5. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the Petitioner had worked as an Anganwadi Worker under Respondent No.4, and it would not be correct to orally deny the services of the Petitioner merely on account of the pendency of the enquiry.
6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i) The Respondents shall pay the honorarium to the Petitioner as long as the Petitioner continues to be as Anganwadi Worker at the Respondent No.4.
ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 31.08.2026 eha
WRIT PETITION No.23367 of 2026 Dated: 31.08.2026
eha