Dismissed
P. Abdullah Khan, Prakasam Dist. v. the a.P.Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad, and 3 Otrs.
Andhra Pradesh HCWP/26307/2016
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI, (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR V
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 26307 OF 2016
Between:
- P. Abdullah Khan, S/o.Sri. Mahaboob Khan, aged 51 years, Maistry Casual, O/o. the Executive Engineer, Samthamaguluru O and M Sub Division, Addanki O and M Division, Addanki, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER
AND
(R1 is formal parties)
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Directions, more particularlyoneinthenatureof Writ Petition of Mandamus: a) To direct the Respondent No.2 to 4 to regularize the services of the Petitioner/Applicant in the post of Maistry with effect from 25.11.1993 in terms of the G.O.Ms. No.212, Finance & Planning (PC.Ill), Dated 22.04.1994, fix the pay and allowances notionally and pay, with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits i.e., seniority & promotion etc.; b) To set aside the Judgment Dated 30.05.2016 in respect of the O.A.No.607 of 2013 in O.A.No.9595 of 2012 & Batch held by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad; c) To award costs; By declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to 4 for not regularize the services of the Petitioner/Applicant herein from 25.11.1993 as bad, illegal, irrational.
unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, void, violative of the Government Orders of '^P®* Court and also violative of the Article 14 16, 19&21 of the Constitution of India,
I.A^ NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 32547 OF 20161
.stated in 'h® circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date for hearing. ^
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. VENKATESWARLU KOLLA
Counsel for the Respondent 3: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING
Counsel for the Respondent No.2,4: GP FOR IRRIGATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
< >•
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Writ Petition No.26307 of 2016
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submitthat
the cause in the instant Writ Petition would not survive for consideration in view of the interim order passed in W.P.No. 17532 of 2007, whereby the petitioner has alreadybeen reinstated into service and placed in the surplus pool.
- The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioneris placed on record.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as havingbeen rendered infructuous. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any.
shall stand closed.
Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
\
//TRUE COPY// i SECTION OFFICER
To,
nm
v.t
» r /
HIGH COURT
DATED: 14/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.26307 of 2016
DISMISSING THE WP AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
'•.jT:\ •r- •.A
%
c.
? ^ V: c >•
P. Abdullah Khan
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
State of Andhra Pradesh
Superintending Engineer, N.S.R.C.
G. Narendar
Nyapyathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court