Allowed

T.Kondaiah, v. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation

Telangana HC6 Jun 2005WP/23496/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a writ petition by five APIIC employees seeking declaration that the corporation's non-implementation of revised pay scales was arbitrary and illegal, relying on a prior batch of judgments.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition, directed the corporation to pay/extend revised pay scales with 12% interest and issue conforming orders within three months.

T.Kondaiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23496 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 T.Kondaiah, S/o.Sri T.Veeraiah, APIIC, R/o.H.No.16-8-446, New Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 E.Rangaiah, S/o.E.Chinnaiah, APIIC Ltd., Zonal office, Tirupati, R/o.15/162, Panchali Nagar Renigunta, Chittoor Dist.

¶10

3 G.Lakshmipati, S/o.G.Channaiah, Zonal office,Tirupati,R/o.19-1-104B, RC Road, Gopalraj Colony,

¶11

Tirupati.

¶12

4 Gurrappa, S/o.Veeraiah, APIIC Ltd., Zonal office, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Tirupati, Madhav Nagar, Satyanarayanpuram, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶13

5 M.Chandrasekhar, S/o.Rajagopalchari, Zonal office, Tirupati, R/o.10-1-126/8, Tiruchanur, Tirupati.

¶14

..... PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

1 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation Limited, 6th

¶17

floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., rep.by its Secretary to Government, Industries

¶18

Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶19

.....RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent corporation in not implementing the proceedings No.39883/PWAPIIC/E4/87, dated 09-07-1993 and circular dated 19-03-1994 of the 1st

¶21

respondent in toto as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also direct the 1st respondent corporation to pay and extend the revised pay scales to the petitioners together with interest at 12% p.a., and pass such other or further orders or orders.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.NUTY RAM MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.K.JANARDHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. FOR INDUSTRIES

¶23

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.23496 of 2004

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent-Corporation in not implementing the proceedings No.39883/PWAPIIC/E4/87, dated 09-07-1993 and the circular dated 19-03-1994 as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory, and consequently direct the first respondent-Corporation to pay and extend the revised payscales to the petitioners and to pay the arrears with interest at 12% p.a.

¶28

2 . At the time of hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the issue is covered by a batch of writ petitions disposed of by this Court in W.P.Nos.8665 and 8666 of 1995 and W.P.No.3299 of 1998 dated 16-09-1999.

¶29

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents though conceded that the issue is covered by the said judgment, however, stated that a review petition has been filed and the same is pending. It is also stated that the orders of the learned Single Judge in the above batch of writ petitions have already been implemented granting the benefit of revised pay scales to them.

¶30

4. Under the above circumstances, this writ petition is also allowed on the same lines as that of the batch of writ petitions disposed of on 16-09-1999. The respondents are also directed to issue orders inconformity with the directions contained in that batch of writ petitions rectifying the anomaly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶32

S.ANANDA REDDY, J

¶33

06^th June, 2005 SKM

¶34

¶35

1 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation Limited, 6th Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Basheerabagh, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., rep.by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Industries, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT) 4 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}

T.Kondaiah, v. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Kondaiah, v. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bathala Guravaiah, Vs B.Pitchaiah

Nagireddigari Subbi Reddy, Vs Mitta Pitchi Reddy

Yammanur Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs Yammanur Rama Linga Reddy.

B.Karuna, Vs Govt., of a.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary

L. Balaram, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

T.Parthasarathi Vs The Government of A.P.