Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: November 2025

Citations: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 167-179Nominal IndexChittiboyina Bharata Rao v. The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 167Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra Pradesh: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 168V. Maheswari and others v. S. Bhaskarachari: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 169Raja Reddy and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 170YUVAJANA SHRAMIKA RYTHU CONGRESS PARTY (YSRCP) v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 171Krishnamsetty Praneetha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 172V Chenchaiah Naidu v. The State of AP and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 173The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajola Jagannadha Reddy and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 174Nagireddi Satish Kumar and Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 175The Director General, CISF & Ors v. Kudipudi Suri Babu: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 176Thandava Yogesh v. State of AP: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 171R Bala Bhaskara Rao, Versus Sri I. Venu Gopala Rao: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 178Yelduti Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and batch: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 179Final Orders/JudgmentsState Can't Claim Financial Incapacity To Withhold Gratuity, Not Giving Benefits To Retired Employees Violates Article 21: AP High CourtCase Title: Chittiboyina Bharata Rao v. The Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd and OrsCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 8465/2016Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 167The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that financial incapacity cannot be used as a defence by the State institutions for non-fulfilment of statutory obligation to provide terminal benefits to its employees, and shirking of the responsibility to release the same amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.The Court was dealing with a case where terminal benefits were denied to retired employees of Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank (DCCB) (Respondent 1)— an institution falling within the ambit of “State” under Article 12, on the grounds that Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS)-(Respondent 3)— to which the petitioners were initially deputed, expressed financial incapacity to release its contributory share.Referring to a Memorandum of Intent of 2013 which prescribed the scheme pertaining to payment of terminal benefits to retired employees, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held,“…respondents 1, 3 & 4, being the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India coupled with the fact that specific terms and conditions in Memorandum of Intent dated 11.01.2013, the said respondents 1, 3 & 4, are bound to release the terminal benefits to the petitioner. A mere financial incapacity or paucity of funds cannot be a valid defence for non-fulfilment of such statutory obligations, more particularly, when the employees rendered their services, as such, they are entitled to terminal benefits under law.”'State Has Moral Obligation': AP High Court Directs Reservation For Transgender Persons In Public Employment Within Six MonthsCase Title: Katru Rekha v. State of Andhra PradeshCase Number: W.P.No.26262 of 2025Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 168In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed a dire need for the State to mainstream the transgender community— which lie at the “bottom of social backwardness", and to subsequently take affirmative action for their inclusion in all spheres of life, including public employment.In this regard, Justice Nyapathy Vijay stated,“As the origin of the problems of transgender persons in India lies in stigma and discrimination they face in family and society, resulting in their exclusion from the socio-economic-cultural-political spectrum, there is a dire need to mainstream them and the adoption of an inclusive approach in all spheres of life including affirmative action by the State in public employment. The purpose of carving out an exception to the right of equal opportunity in employment by the introduction of Article 16(4) and 16(4A) of the Constitution of India is only to ensure that socially and economically backward communities are also allowed to come into the forefront of society and ensure intergenerational equality. The transgender community is not only socially and economically backward, but has also been abandoned by society. In these circumstances, the State has a moral obligation under the Constitution to take affirmative action on behalf of such communities.”Plaintiffs Cannot Reserve Rebuttal Evidence Under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC When Entire Burden Of Proof Is On Them: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: V. Maheswari and others v. S. BhaskarachariCase Number: Civil Revision Petition No: 2734 of 2022Citation: LiveLaw 2025 (AP) 169The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld a Trial Court order, which dismissed a petition filed under Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC seeking permission for the plaintiffs to reserve their right to adduce rebuttal evidence after the defendants concluded their evidence in a partition suit involving a registered...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest: November 2025

Saahas Arora

Tags