Dismissed

Kota Solman, Guntur District. v. Apsrtc, by Executive Director, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Service Termination – Infructuous Petition

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jan 2024WP/21731/2007

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a pension/employment termination matter dismissed the writ petition as infructuous on the submission that the cause of action did not survive, closing pending miscellaneous applications without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

Kota Solman, Guntur District. Vs Apsrtc, by… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21731 OF 2007

¶5

Between:

¶6

Kota Solman, S/o Yakub, aged 45 years, R/o H.No.14-1-368, KCP Cement Factory, Back Side, Near Railway Station, Macherla, Guntur District.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

APSRTC, Rep. by its Executive Director, Vijayawada Zone , Imliban Bus Station, Hyderabad.

¶10

APSRTC rep., by its Regional Manager, Guntur Region, Guntur, Guntur District. .•

¶11

APSRTC rep., by its Divisional Manager, Narasaraopeta Division Guntur District.

¶12

APSRTC rep., by its Depot Manager, Macherla Bus Depot, Guntur

¶13

District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent i in terminating the services of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently set aside the termination order dated 24-12-2002 by the 4*' respondent and also the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 24-92007 by reinstating the petitioner' i into service with continuity of service. attendant benefits and back wages and pass such other order or orders as

¶16

this Hon ble Court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶17

LA. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPI/IP. NO: 16311 OF 2009)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to post the matter for being mentioned in W.P M.P No.19871 of 2008 in W.P 21731/2007.

¶19

LA. NO: 2 OF 2007fWPMP. NO; 28179 OF 2007)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No.P3/114(5)/02/MCL dated 24-122002 issued by the 4'^ respondent and the proceedings No.L1/785(28)/2007-RM/GNT, dt.24-9-2007 issued by the of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. LA. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NOqf 2012)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the yearly increments to the petitioner as per the APSRTC Regulation 11 of (Pay and Allowances), pending disposal of the writ petition LA. NO: 1 OF 2007fWVMP. NO: 3027 of 2007) Between:

¶22

APSRTC, Rep. by its Executive Director, Vijayawada Zone, Imliban Bus

¶23

Station, Hyderabad.

¶24

APSRTC rep., by its Regional Manager, Guntur Region , Guntur, Guntur District.

¶25

APSRTC rep., by its Divisional Manager, Narasaraopeta Division Guntur District.

¶26

APSRTC rep., by its Depot Manager, Macherla Bus Depot, Guntur District.

¶27

Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 4

¶28

AND

¶29

Kota Solman, S/o Yakub, aged 45 years, R/o H.No.14-1-368, KCP Cement Factory, Back Side, Near Railway Station, Macherla, Guntur District.

¶30

Respondent/Petitioner

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt. 11-10-2007 passed in WPMP No. 28179 of 2007 in WP No. 21731 of 2007and dismiss the writ petition. LA. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP. NO: 19871 OF 20081

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the revised pay scales attached to the post of driver to the petitibher as per the revised pay scales 2005 pending disposal of writ petition.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI. G. RAVI MOHAN

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI.P. DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

¶37

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.21731 of 2007

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner (appearing through

¶41

online) submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive.

¶42

Noting the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous potions, if any,

shall stand closed.

SD/- P VINOD KUMAR

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI G. RAVI MOHAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

One CC to SRI P. DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Advocate

¶53

[OPUC]

¶54

Three C.D Copies

MBT

HIGH COURT

PATED:24/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21731 of 2007

DISMISSING THE WP AS

INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Kota Solman, Guntur District. v. Apsrtc, by Executive Director, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kota Solman, Guntur District. v. Apsrtc, by Executive Director, Hyderabad and 3 Others

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

Goriparthi Venkateswara Yadav, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum- Appellate

K. Pratap, Adoni, Kurnool Dist. Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Dist., and Anr.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs B. Nageswara Rao and Another

S.Smahankali Rao Vs Spl Cadre Dy Regr.,Kdccbl.,M.Patnam and 3

P. Sarada Kumari Vs the Commissioner of Endowments

Smt.Sunkara Suryavathi Vs State Government of Ap.,rep.by its Secretary