Allowed

Merla Sastrulu, v. District Educational Officer

Telangana HC1 Dec 2006WP/22796/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition filed by a secondary grade teacher seeking pay fixation under Revised Pay Scales of 2005. The court directed the district educational officer to consider pending proposals and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the proposals sent by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Merla Sastrulu, Vs District Educational… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22796 of 2006

¶4

Dated 1^st December, 2006

¶5

Between Meria Sastrulu

¶6

… Petitioner And

¶7

District Educational Officer, East Godavari District, Khammam and another.

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

ORAL ORDER:

¶10

The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in Vani Aided Elementary School, Ryali village, Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. Pursuant to the orders issued by the Government, the District Educational officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada has issued instructions to the managements of all private aided schools requesting them to submit necessary proposals for approval of pay fixation in the Revised Pay Scales of 2005 in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff working in their institutions. Pursuant to the same, the management of Vani Aided Elementary School in which the petitioner is working submitted the proposals to the second respondent in the month of January, 2006, who in turn forwarded the same to the District Educational Officer on 3.3.2006.

¶11

It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of forwarding of the proposals to the first respondent-competent authority, the first respondent has not taken any decision.

¶12

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the pay fixation in terms of the Revised Pay Scales of 2005 or not is a matter, which is required to be considered by the competent authority. But, however, when the proposals were submitted by the management of the school in which the petitioner was working, to the second respondent, who forwarded the same to the first respondent on 3.3.2006, there appears to be no reason for keeping the proposals pending for a long time without taking any decision. As much as it is also stated that the petitioner was extended the benefit of fixation in the year

¶13

1999, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider the proposals sent by the second respondent, pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from today and communicate the same to the petitioner through the management of the school, in which the petitioner is working.

¶14

Subject to above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

_____________________ 1.12.2006 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. VR Note: Issue cc within three days. (BO) VR

Merla Sastrulu, v. District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merla Sastrulu, v. District Educational Officer

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

The Vasista Educational Society, Seetharampuram, Vs The Government of A.P. Higher and Technical Education

Ramaraja Institute of Technology and Science, Vs The Convenor-ICET-2006, (Admissions) Center for

Vyjayanthi Educational Society, 101, 2nd Floor, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education

E.Sudharshanam Vs The R.P.F.commissioner, Bhavishayanidi Bhavan

Holy Faith Minority Educational Society, Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary

K. Shyam Sunder Reddy S/o K.N. Reddy Vs The R.P.F. Commissioner, Bhavishyanidi Bhavan