Remanded

S. Gopanna v. The Superintending Engineer

Telangana HC8 Apr 2005WP/6104/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court noted prior orders in a related writ petition were passed on September 8, 2005. The Court disposed of the present petition, quashed the Labour Court order, and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration within six weeks.

S. Gopanna Vs The Superintending Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

¶6

and

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO : 6104 of 2005

¶9

Between:

¶10

S. Gopanna S/o. Kistaiah, Roads and Buildings Department, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District, R/o. 2-55/2, Mahabubnagar.

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Balkampet, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Mahabubnagar, 3 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Transport, R & B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabgad-22. 4 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabgad-22.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Memo bearing No. EC.3/Suits/97/2004-2005 dt. 4-9-2004 of 2nd respondent and consequential orders passed in O.A.No. 619/2005 dt. 4-3-2005 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same with all consequential benefits and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner services as Work Inspector by reinstating him into service as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt. 22-4-1994 and further declare the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing Memo No. EC.3/Suits/97, 2004-2005, dt. 4-9-2004 as

¶16

illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory being violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.RANGANADH RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORAL ORDER:- (PER GB,J)

¶21

In view of the orders passed in W.P.No.24526 of 2000, dated 08.04.2005, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition, and the order of the Labour Court is set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

¶22

2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

3. However, we direct the Labour Court to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties concerned should within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

G. BIKSHAPATHY, J

P.S. NARAYANA, J

Date: 08.04.2005

1 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Balkampet, Hyderabad.

¶30

2 The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Mahabubnagar,

¶31

3 The Secretary, Government of A.P., Transport, R&B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabgad-22.

¶32

4 The Secretary, Government of A.P., Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabgad-22.

¶33

5 2 CCs to the GP for Roads and Buildings, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶34

6 2 CD copies

S. Gopanna v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Gopanna v. The Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Venkateswara Petro Chemicals Ltd., Vs The Additional Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Legal

Juplli Srinivasa Rao, Vs The commissioner

Ramji Patel Vs I.Narender

The Asthane Noor-E-Elahi, Noor Sha-Vali, Vs The District Collector

K.Sulochana Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

Syed Ameer, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, rep., by its