Dismissed

C.Dada Khalander, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2022WP/31636/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner had already been given appointment and promotion during the pendency of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous due to grant of appointment and promotion during pendency; miscellaneous petitions closed.

C.Dada Khalander, Vs Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31636 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶5

counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶6

The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶7

“ ..to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Shramik on compassionate grounds though the petitioner is fully eligible as on the date of sanction accorded by the Government of A.P. vide G.O.Ms.No.2, Transport, Roads Buildings (Tr.II) Department dated 05.01.2013, is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the scheme of compassionate appointment, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, Article 16 and Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds to the post of Shramik as per the selections held on 27.06.2013 as per the seniority of registered application dated 26.07.2010, on par with the 7^th respondent and pass such other order or orders.”

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the respondents submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been given appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 13.03.2015, a copy of which has been brought on record by way of reply affidavit, and later on the petitioner has also been granted promotion.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition is rendered infructuous as the relief as prayed, has been granted by the respondents, and no cause of action survives. The writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶14

Date: 25.07.2022 PGT

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.31636 of 2013

¶18

Date: 25.07.2022

¶19

PGT

C.Dada Khalander, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Dada Khalander, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.v.P.P.Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Siva Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Agrl. and Coop. Dept. and 2 Ors.

G.Venkateswar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Jagan Mohan Reddy,S/o.Lakshmi Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

T.a.Padmanabhan,Chittoor Dist Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Hydandanot

Sameer Kumar Santosh Roy, Vs The Government of India, Department of Home