Partly allowed

The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (Aptransco) v. Bharthipudi Venkata Ramana

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2024WA/1168/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees claimed pay/pay scale under an agreement with their employer; the Single Judge issued directions and the employer appealed. With parties' consensus, the writ appeals were partly allowed, continuing payment of salary as on 01.03.2023 pending disposal of the writ petitions, with a request to expedite hearing.

What did the court decide?

Appellants to continue paying respondents' salary (as on 01.03.2023) pending disposal of writ petitions; expedited hearing requested; liberty for early hearing; miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010589392023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[ 3463 TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY ] TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1167 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

THE ANDHRA PRADESH TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (APTRANSCO) AND OTHERS

¶10

...APPELLANT(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

BHARTHIPUDI VENKATA RAMANA AND OTHERS

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶16

AND

¶17

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1168 OF 2023

¶18

Between:

¶19

THE ANDHRA PRADESH TRANSMISSION CORPORATION (APTRANSCO) AND OTHERS

¶20

...APPELLANT(S)

¶21

AND

¶22

BHARTHIPUDI VENKATA RAMANA AND OTHERS

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI(SC FOR APTRANSCO)

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶26

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶27

Heard Sri. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel,

¶28

assisted by Sri. Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Standing

¶29

¶30

Counsel for the Appellants/Respondents and Sri. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents/Writ Petitioners.

¶31

The Appellants are the employers and the Respondents are the Petitioners/employees who had setup a claim that they are entitled to pay/pay scale on certain terms said to have been agreed upon between the parties at a particular point of time. Based on the said agreement, Writ Petitions were moved and certain directions came to be issued by the learned Single Judge and being aggrieved by the same, these Intra-Court Appeals came to be preferred.

¶32

This Court, having heard the learned Senior Counsels on both sides, was pleased to pass interim order, dated 01.10.2023, as under:

¶33

“Till then, the Appellant shall continue paying the old salary i.e., the salary paid to the respondents as on 01.10.2023.”

¶34

1. Today, the learned Senior Counsels submit that, in view

¶35

of the pendency of the Writ Appeals, the hearing of the Writ

¶36

¶37

Petitions is getting delayed and submit that the Writ Appeals could be disposed of in terms of the interim order, dated 30.11.2023 and that the learned Single Judge may also be requested to expedite the hearing and disposal of the Writ Petitions itself.

¶38

The submissions, made by both the learned Senior Counsels being fair and equitable and as the disposal of the Writ Petitions would require adjudication of facts and in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties with regard to the terms for the disposal of the Writ Appeals, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Appeals could be disposed of on the said terms.

¶39

Accordingly, the Writ Appeals stand partly allowed. The Appellants, pending disposal of the writ petitions, shall continue paying the salary in terms of the interim order granted by this Bench on 30.11.2023 i.e., the salary paid to the Respondents as on 01.03.2023.

¶40

That apart, we also request the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing and disposal of the Writ Petitions itself.

¶41

¶42

Liberty is granted to both the parties to move an application of an early hearing or fixing a date of hearing of the Writ Petitions.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶44

shall stand closed.

¶45

G.NARENDAR , J

¶46

_____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶47

Date: 20.02.2024 Sm…/…

¶48

¶49

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶50

AND

¶51

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶52

W.A. No. 1167 of 2023

¶53

And

¶54

W.A. No. 1168 of 2023

¶55

Date: 20.02.2024

¶56

Sm.

The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (Aptransco) v. Bharthipudi Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (Aptransco) v. Bharthipudi Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinnamsetty Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinnamsetty Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Union of India, Vs a Shankar

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs T Rajendra Reddy

The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (Aptransco) Vs Bharthipudi Venkata Ramana

The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Labour