The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a memo that rejected the petitioners' claim for benefits due to the lack of vacancies. The Court held that no benefit arises when vacancies do not exist and dismissed the petition without merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO.11373 of 2000
Between:
1. K.Srinivasa Sarma, S/o.K.Sankaraiah, 30 years, R/o.24/68, Vasanthapet Street, Proddatur, Cuddapah District.
And one other.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. The A.P.Transco, rep.by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
And three others.
…RESPONDENTS
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO.11373 of 2000
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao)
The petitioners herein filed this Writ Petition, inter alia, assailing the impugned Memo No.DP/DIR/(DM (IR))/P.O.3/4104/-A2/97 dated 14.03.1998 as illegal and arbitrary.
The case of the petitioners, in short, is that they are working as contract labour and entitled to the benefit of B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 and have been selected accordingly. Earlier, they filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.24609 of 1998 and this Court allowed the same on 25.11.1998. Since the said order was not complied with, the petitioners filed Contempt Case in C.C.No.1577 of 1999. The same was also disposed of on 10.12.1999 with a direction to comply the said orders by granting time.
The case of the petitioners, in brief, in this Writ Petition, is that having regard to the fact that there are no vacancies, their case was rejected. However, as per the impugned memo dated 14.03.1998, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to the said benefit. Hence, the
Writ Petition.
The Writ affidavit and the material filed in support thereof are
perused. The fact that there are no vacancies is not in dispute. The directions are given remain as long as no vacancies exist and hence, when there are no vacancies, the question of providing such benefit does not arise. Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the
circumstances, without costs.
_________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J)
_______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
14th December 2006 RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to benefits when there are no vacancies available.
Whether the impugned memo rejecting the petitioners' claim is illegal and arbitrary.
K.Srinivasa Sarma
The A.P.Transco
B.PRAKASH RAO
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
