Municipal corporation wound up by State Government; casual employees seek relief against termination; dismissed due to legal precedent.
No costs; relief sought (declaration of illegality, restoration) denied.
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 SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No. 12694 of 1995
05-12-2006
Between:-
V. Satyanandam and one hundred and ninety others. Petitioner And State of A.P., rep by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.No.12694 of 1995
Oral order:
Heard Sri V. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the law declared in SECY., STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI1 , the grievance of the petitioners and the relief sought by them (i.e, to declare G.O.Ms.No.193 General Administration (Poll.O) Department dated 12-05-1995 as illegal and the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners by the third respondent without absorbing them in any other Corporation/Government Departments), is misconceived. The petitioners are casual/temporary/adhoc employees of third respondentCorporation and in G.O.Ms.No. 193 (impugned herein) the State Government after examining the report of the Committee for restructuring State Level Public Enterprises and Co-operative Enterprises decided to wind up the third respondent-Corporation
whereat the petitioners were working on a casual/temporary/adhoc basis. As a consequence, the petitioners apprehend termination from service and have sought the relief already adverted to. In view of the law declared in SECY. STATE OF KARNATAKA case (supra), the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
Dated:05-12-2006 Pvks/*
1 2006(4)SCC1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the shutdown of a corporation justified the continuation of casual/temporary employees under a restructured scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secy., State of Karnataka v. UmadeviRelied on¶11
SECY., STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI
V. Satyanandam and 190 others
State of A.P.
Goda Raghuram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
