Disposed

Chakinala Satyanarayana, v. The Special Commissioner and Director

Telangana HC5 Sept 2005WP/6549/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench disposed of a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order. The High Court held that directing the finalisation of draft Statutory Rules was unnecessary as they remained in draft. Instead, it directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion based on existing seniority and rules.

What did the court decide?

Forward direction: respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the absence of Statutory Rules, in accordance with existing seniority and Rules.

Chakinala Satyanarayana, Vs The Special… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.6549 OF 2005

¶5

Dt: 05.09.2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shakinala Satyanarayana S/o.Sri Veeraiah Occ: TG Teacher in Maths, R/o.2-3-529/A/18 Bhapunagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad … PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Special Commissioner and Director Disabled Welfare Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and others .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶11

AND

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.6549 OF 2005

¶14

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner-applicant to quash the Order dated 16.09.2004 in O.A.No.7800 of 1999 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and consequently to set aside the Order dated 12.03.1999 promoting the third respondent herein and also to direct the respondents to finalise the Statutory Rules immediately.

¶16

The above said O.A. was filed questioning the orders issued to respondent No.3 promoting her as Post Graduate Teacher and posting her at Miryalaguda, Zone-VI while she was working in Zone-V.

¶17

The Tribunal after going into the merits of the case dismissed the O.A. and as the promotion to respondent No.3 was given subject to finalisation of the Statutory Rules by the Government, it directed the respondents to review the promotion effected on ad-hoc basis to respondent No.3 duly considering the case of the petitioner also, after issuance of the Statutory Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been preferred.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel

¶19

The relief granted by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of the O.A. in view of the fact that the Tribunal directed the official respondents to review the promotion effected on ad-hoc basis to the 3^rd respondent duly considering the case of the petitioner also, after issuance of the Statutory Rules. As the said Rules are still in draft stage, we do not find any necessity to issue such a direction. But, however, the official respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner also for promotion in the absence of any Statutory Rules, in accordance with the existing seniority and Rules.

¶20

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

¶21

(T.MEENA KUMARI, J)

¶22

(P.LAKSHMANA REDDY, J)

¶23

Dt:05.09.2005

¶24

bsv/lvl

Chakinala Satyanarayana, v. The Special Commissioner and Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakinala Satyanarayana, v. The Special Commissioner and Director

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

Kadimsetty Suryanarayana, Vs The Secretary

S.Venkata Rao, Vs The Regional Deputy Director

S.Nageswara Rao, Vs The Govt of A.P

Meesala Muralidhar, Vs The government. of A.P.

D.Lingaiah and Others Vs Sect. Home Dept Hyd and Others

Dr. Mohd. Abdul Bari, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh