Disposed

P. Ashok Kumar, v. The Chief General Manager

Telangana HC6 Aug 2004WP/11287/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a casual worker, approached the High Court claiming denial of temporary employment status despite juniors receiving it. The order directed the Divisional Engineer to consider the petitioner's case under existing rules within three months and dismissed any other costs.

What did the court decide?

The fourth respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's case for temporary status within three months.

P. Ashok Kumar, Vs The Chief General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 11287 of 2004

¶6

Between:

¶7

P. Ashok Kumar, S/o. P. Rajaih, SDOP, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Door Sanchar Bhavan, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶11

2 The General Manager(Development), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

¶12

3rd Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶13

3 The Principal Chief Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District, Suryalok Complex, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶14

4 The Divisional Engineer, Phones(South), Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

5 The Sub Divisional Officer, Phones(South), Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

6 The Sub Divisional Officer, Phones(South), Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or issue a Writ, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conferring the Temporary Status to the petitioner is illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to confer the Temporary Status on the petitioner and to regularise his service, on par with his Juniors with all consequential benefits

¶19

For the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate.

¶20

For the Respondents Nos 1 to 6.: Mr. K.Narahari, Addl.S.C. for Central Govt.

¶21

The Court made the following :

¶22

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU,

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.11287 OF 2004

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The petitioner contends that he is working as a Casual Mazdoor under the respondent company since 01.02.1991. He claims that by virtue of a scheme introduced by the company, he is entitled to get a temporary status in the company, which would help him to get a regular employment in the course of time.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not considering his case for a temporary status, though some of his juniors were conferred with the said status. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case for conferring the temporary status.

¶27

In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner, the fourth respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for temporary status, in the light of the existing instructions and rules, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, if he is not otherwise disqualified.

¶28

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

_____________________ (G. YETHIRAJULU,J)

¶30

6^th August, 2004

¶31

Note:- Issue C.C. in one week. B/o BCS+KSN

¶32

Asst. REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY //

¶33

SECTION OFFICER

¶34

¶35

1 The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

¶36

Door Sanchar Bhavan, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶37

2 The General Manager(Development), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

¶38

3rd Floor, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶39

3 The Principal Chief Manager, Hyderabad Telecom District, Suryalok Complex, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶40

4 The Divisional Engineer, Phones(South), Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶41

5 The Sub Divisional Officer, Phones(South), Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶42

6 The Sub Divisional Officer, Phones(South), Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad.

¶43

7. 2.C.D Copies.

P. Ashok Kumar, v. The Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ashok Kumar, v. The Chief General Manager

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

Lamba Theatre.Sec.Bad Vs Adl.Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad

Mecon (I) Ltd. Vs Ind.Tribunal-Cum-L.C.Vsp.Andanother

Borewell Hydrolics(P) Ltd.M Vs Chairman Industrial Tribunal

M.V. Krishna Reddy, Vs The Chief Engineer (Randb)

P. Samba Murthy, Vs The Superintendent Engineer

Noor Mohammed, E-81181, Drivefr Vs The a.Ps.R.T.C. Rep by itss Managing Director