Disposed

Mohd. nayeemuddin, (EC.87642) v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC2 Aug 2005WP/9255/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, retired after 26 years of service on medical grounds, challenged his termination without alternative employment. The High Court, without deciding merits, directed respondents under Section 4 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, to decide on alternative employment within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to provide alternative employment or retain petitioner on supernumerary post within two months.

Mohd. nayeemuddin, (EC.87642) Vs The… — 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 TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 9255 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd. Nayeemuddin, (EC.87642) S/o.Sirajuddin

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Regional Manager, Nizamabad. 2 The Depot Manager, II Depot, APSRTC Nizamabad.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶13

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 or order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus: i) declaring the office order No.E2/648(2)/2005-NZB.II, dt.2.3.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same. ii) consequently direct the respondents to provide the petitioner in any other alternative post duly protecting the petitioners pay and other service benefits w.e.f.2.3.2005 or in the alternative to keep the petitioner on supernumerary post duly protecting and paying petitioners wages and other service benefits w.e.f. 2.3.2005. iii) and pass such other order or orders.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC)

¶16

The Court at the admission stage made the following O R D E R:

¶17

The petitioner was appointed as driver in the year 1978. The petitioner contends that having served the Corporation for more than 26 years, the respondents without providing alternative employment, passed the office order on 02.03.2005 retiring him on medical grounds. Hence this writ petition.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶19

Respondents have to take appropriate decision in accordance with the rules and regulations particularly in terms of Section 4 of Persons with disabilities (Equal, opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Disabilities Act’). Therefore, without going into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate decision for providing alternative employment to the petitioner as per Section 4 of the Disabilities Act within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶20

(K.C.BHANU,J)

¶21

Dt:25^th April, 2005

¶22

Note:CC in one week

usd

1 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad. 2 The Depot Manager, II Depot, APSRTC Nizamabad.

¶27

3 Two CD copies.

Mohd. nayeemuddin, (EC.87642) v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. nayeemuddin, (EC.87642) v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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

Y. Rama Rao, Vs The Secretary to Government

D.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The Honorary General Secreary

D.Balachandra, Vs The Honorary General Secretary

Y. Prasad, S/o. Y. Ramaiah Vs The State of A.P.

The Social Welfare Residential Teachers Union (Regd) Vs The Principal Secretary

D.Saibabu Vs Sec.Endowments Department