Dismissed

M. Gangadhar Reddy v. Apgenco Rep. by its Managing Director

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2019WP/11449/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A judge disposed of a writ petition by ordering the dismissal of the petition and closing pending miscellaneous files, relying on a previous Division Bench order and accepting the petitioners' undertaking to forego notional seniority while retaining service benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

M. Gangadhar Reddy Vs Apgenco Rep. by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO WRIT PETITION No.11449 OF 2012

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the Memo No.CE/O&M RTPP/PO/F13/D No.15015/1999, dated 20.07.1999 and proceedings CE/E/O&M RTPP/PO/F10/D No.2476/1999, dated 09.11.1999, Memo No.DEE/O&M/PHPS/ADM/D No.288/99, dated 07.07.1999 and proceedings Memo CE/O&M/RTPP/PO/FP/D No.1100/02, dated 17.04.2002 in so far as not granting the notional seniority w.e.f. 06.12.1996 and monetary benefits from 09.12.1997 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the guidelines issued in BP (P&GMR) MS No.326, dated 14.09.1998, and BPMS No.272, dated 31.12.1997, and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners as JPA/JLA/PA/Shunter/AAE w.e.f. 06.12.1996 with monetary benefits from 09.12.1997 in terms of BPMS No.326, dated 14.03.1998, with all consequential benefits.

¶4

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Dasari Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, by producing the memorandum of undertakings, submitted by the petitioners, which are akin, would request the Court to pass orders in this writ petition in terms of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1737 and 1745 of 2018, dated 06.06.2019, stating that the

¶5

UDPR,J W.P. No.11449 of 2012

¶6

¶7

case of the petitioners is covered by the orders in the aforesaid Writ Appeals.

¶8

3. Learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, reported no objection. The memorandum of undertakings filed by the petitioners is to the following effect.

¶9

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶10

AT AMARAVATHI

¶11

W.P. No.11459 OF 2012

¶12

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERTAKING

¶13

I, Y.Ravi Shekar Reddy, S/o. Y.Narayan Reddy, age 48, OCC:PA (Shunter), Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project (RPP), Kadapa District, humbly submit that I have filed the above writ petition No.11449/2012 for extending the benefit of seniority and for computing service benefit w.e.f.06-12-1996 and financial benefit from 09-02-1997 as per the terms of scheme contained in B.P.M.S. No.326, dated 14.03.1998.

¶14

The above Writ Petition has been heard and pending for hearing and as I am advised that in the event of extending the seniority w.e.f.06-12-1996, number of persons appointed in between would be effected, therefore I have decided to forego seniority w.e.f.06-12-1996 however my services may be counted on regular basis w.e.f.06-12-1996 for the purpose of pay fixation retiral benefits as well as fixation of pension etc. without any claim for notional seniority and further to allow the petitioners, the pecuniary benefits w.e.f.09-12-1997 along with arrears as allowed to all other contract labours which was extended under the scheme vide B.P.M.s. No.326, dated 14.03.1998.

¶15

Hence this undertaking being given by me out of my free will and consent.

¶16

S/d.XXXX

¶17

DEPONENT”

¶18

UDPR,J W.P. No.11449 of 2012

¶19

¶20

4. In view of the above memorandum of undertakings submitted by the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the common order, dated 06.06.2019, in Writ Appeal Nos.1737 and 1745 of 2018 where under the Writ Appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court confirming the orders passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.17643 of 2012 and 12747 of 2010. No order as to costs.

¶21

5. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

_____________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 17.09.2019 SS/DSH

M. Gangadhar Reddy v. Apgenco Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Gangadhar Reddy v. Apgenco Rep. by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Hari Babu Vs State of Ap

P.Satyavathi Vs State of Ap

K.Lakshmaiah Vs State of Ap

P.Manoj Kumar Vs State of Ap

S.Rajeswari Vs State of Ap

Yallamilli Jaya Priyanaka Vs Rayudu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana