Dismissed

G.Dharma Raju, E.G. Dist. v. Secy. F and a Dept. Hyd and 5 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Jan 2024WP/7046/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking to enforce Government Order No.67 of 2009 for the petitioner's reinstatement. The court held that the petitioner was absent from duties since January 2002 and failed to establish continuous service, thus denying the relief sought.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. No relief granted to the petitioner.

G.Dharma Raju, E.G. Dist. Vs Secy. F… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7046 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents denying the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 20.02.2009 whereby, the petitioner claims that he ought to be taken into service of the 4^th respondent-Bank as was done in all the cases of decaderised Secretaries.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed on 14.04.1978 and during his service he served in various PACS (Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies). The petitioner was placed under suspension on account of certain irregularities alleged against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 08.11.1999. Aggrieved by the in-action on the part of the respondents in reinstating the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26997 of 1999 vide interim order dated 28.04.2000, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. The order of reinstatement dated 15.10.2001 was issued. Though the petitioner submitted a joining report dated 26.10.2001 he was not

¶6

HN,J W.P.No.7046 of 2010

¶7

permitted to discharge his duties and he was kept out of service for no reason.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several representations were made seeking permission to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties which were not acted upon. The 6^th respondent-Society also passed a resolution dated 01.11.2001 whereby the service of the petitioner was surrendered to the 4^th respondent-Bank which is not in accordance with any law. The petitioner was thereafter directed to continue the service in 6^th respondentSociety. However, there has been no action of the 6^th respondent-Society in that regard. During the enquiry G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 20.02.2009 issued by the Government whereby some operational guidelines was issued and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Cooperative Officer concerned shall issue reliving orders to the decaderised Paid Secretaries from the respective PACS with instructions to report to the concerned DCCB’s on 01.03.2009. The decaderised Paid Secretaries after the relief from PACS concerned shall report before the Chief Executive Officer DCCB concerned on 01.03.2009. The service of the

¶9

HN,J W.P.No.7046 of 2010

¶10

petitioner was not released by the 4^th respondent-Bank and challenges the denial of benefit issued under G.O.Ms.No.67.

¶11

The counter filed by the 5^th respondent on behalf of 1^st , 2^nd and 5^th respondents it is stated that the petitioner was paid salary for those days during which he served as Secretary and as seen from the counter that the petitioner was paid salary for a period of five days in October 2001, six days in November 2001 and for two days in December 2001. The counter also indicates that the petitioner has not shown any interest in joining the society and it was his own conduct that the petitioner was not in service. It is also stated that the petitioner absconded from the duties of the 6^th respondent-Society form the January 2002.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner in so far as directing the respondents to extend the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 20.02.2009 could have been considered had the petitioner established before this Court that he has been in continues service of the respondents. On the contrary it is stated that the petitioner has absconded from duties from January 2002 onwards.

¶13

HN,J W.P.No.7046 of 2010

¶14

Considering the same, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

________________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶17

Date: 29.01.2024 SNI

¶18

HN,J W.P.No.7046 of 2010

¶19

192

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.7046 of 2010

¶22

Date: 29.01.2024 SNI

G.Dharma Raju, E.G. Dist. v. Secy. F and a Dept. Hyd and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Dharma Raju, E.G. Dist. v. Secy. F and a Dept. Hyd and 5 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

Donkada Giri and Anr. Vs the Commissioner Endowments, Hyd.and Anr.

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nandyal. Vs D.Y. Dass and Ano.

K. Ramanjaneyulu Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

T.v.Satyanarayana, Prakasam District Vs the Apsrtc., M.D., Musheerabad,Hyderabad and 3 Others

S.M.Hanif, Prakasam District Vs the Apsrtc., Markapuram Depot, Prakasam District and Another

M/S. Balaji Hatcheries, Chittoor. Vs Government of A.P. Hyderabad and Another