Dismissed

T.L.B. Pavan Kumar v. The Secretary to Government of a.P., Gad

Telangana HC4 Oct 2005WA/1893/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ appellant challenged a decision denying allotment of a government quarter previously occupied by his father. The Apex Court held the appellant was not entitled to out-of-turn allotment due to late appointment and ranked him lower than the B-Type category of his father's tenure.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, and it is noted that the petitioner is vacating the quarters.

T.L.B. Pavan Kumar Vs The Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶2

and

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO.1893 OF 2005

¶5

Dated: 04-10-2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

T.L.B.Pavan Kumar …Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

The Secretary to Government of A.P. and Another …Respondents

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶12

WRIT APPEAL NO.1893 OF 2005

¶13

J U D G M E N T (Per the Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, ACJ)

¶14

This appeal is filed against the order dated 13-09-2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19456 of 2005 and the writ petitioner/appellant wanted this Court to issue directions that the Government should allot Quarter No.B-32 to him. This was the quarter occupied by his father, while he was in service. After the retirement of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner made a representation that the quarter should be allotted to him, which was occupied by his father. It may be worthwhile to note that the petitioner was appointed on 1^st March, 2005, while his father retired from service as a Court Officer on 31^st December, 2004. The petitioner obviously was able to get a job after the retirement of his father and was not in service when his father retired. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner

¶15

was not entitled to allotment on out of turn basis. On an additional ground that the petitioner was appointed as a Record Assistant, he was not eligible for allotment of B-Type quarter, which his father was in possession of as a Court Officer and the petitioner was only eligible for allotment of a D-Type quarter. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We are told at the Bar that the petitioner is vacating the quarters today.

¶16

In this view of the matter, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

(Bilal Nazki, ACJ)

¶18

4^th October, 2005 ___________________ (R.Subhash Reddy,J)

¶19

vrn

T.L.B. Pavan Kumar v. The Secretary to Government of a.P., Gad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.L.B. Pavan Kumar v. The Secretary to Government of a.P., Gad

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

K. John Joseph, Vs The District Collector-cum-Spl. Officer

Devabhaktuni Sri Sambhuvara Prasad, Vs Commissioner Of Cooperation and Registrar Of

Ponnuru Mukteshwara Rao S/o Venkateshwarlu Vs Collector, (Cooperation)

R. v. Appa Rao , Ramana Murthy , Vs The Chairman, University Grants

B. Ramesh Reddy, Vs The Director of Mines and Geology

Ramesh Gupta, S Vs Ch. Ravinder Rao