Disposed

G. Krishna Murthy S/o Raja Rao v. The Sate of a.P., rep by Principal Secretary to Government

Telangana HC13 Apr 2006WP/9947/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition involving correction of date of birth, disposed of the petition by directing the government to reconsider the applicant's representation solely based on G.O.Ms.NO.358, 1972, without reference to a later circular, and deemed a related O.A. disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Government to dispose of representation based on G.O.Ms.NO.358, 1972, ignoring Circular Memo No.20548/448/FR.1/2004. O.A. No.1161/05 deemed disposed of.

G. Krishna Murthy S/o Raja Rao Vs The Sate… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

¶6

and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.9947 of 2005

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Krishna Murthy S/o Raja Rao P.R. Nabard Panchayat Raju Engineering Department Srtgn Bhavan, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Sate of A.P., rep by Principal Secretary to Government Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The State of A.P., rep by Principal Secretary, General

¶13

Administration Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Engineer-in-Chief Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, STRGN Bhavan, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

¶16

Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for alternation of date of birth as per the rules existing on the date of his representation dt 16-6-1979 from 24-3-1948 to 29-1-1950 by holding the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in not considering the request of the petitioner herein for alteration of date of birth from 24-3-1948 to 29-11-1950 as per the rules applicable as on the date of representation made by the petitioner, i.e., on 16-6-1979 in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Srinivas Rao's (reported in 1983 (1) S.L.R. page-789 while setting aside the impugned Memo No. 16559/estt. 1.2/2004-1, dt 28-1-2005 of the 1st respondent herein and set aside the order in OA. No. 1161/05 dt 4/4/05 herein.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.V.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.

¶19

The Court, at the admission stage, made the following:

¶20

ORAL ORDER:- (PER GB, J)

¶21

The Writ Petition is filed assailing the interim order, dated 04.04.2005, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.1161 of 2005.

¶22

2. The matter relates to alteration of date of birth of the petitioner. While admitting the O.A. the Tribunal granted the following interim relief.

¶23

“Pending further orders, without going into the merits of the O.A. at the admission stage, the respondents are directed to consider the representation filed by the applicant in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the expression “in accordance with law” is misinterpreted by the Government. In fact the application was made when the rules issued in G.O.Ms.NO.358, dated 10.08.1972, were in force and therefore, the Government ought not to have rejected the case on the basis of circular, dated 13.10.2004. Under those circumstances, learned counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be properly modified.

¶25

4. We have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶26

5. In view of the clear legal situation, we dispose of the writ petition, directing the Government to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner keeping in view the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.NO.358, dated 10.08.1972, without reference to the instructions contained in Circular Memo No.20548/448/FR.1/2004, dated 13.10.2004.

¶27

6. In view of the above direction, no purpose will be served by keeping the O.A. pending, and therefore, the O.A. shall be deemed to have been disposed of in terms of the direction supra.

¶28

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶29

G. BIKSHAPATHY, J

P.S. NARAYANA, J

Date: 28.04.2005

ES/NSR

1 The Principal Secretary, State of A.P.,

¶35

Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶36

2 The Principal Secretary, State of A.P., General

¶37

Administration Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Engineer-in-Chief Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, STRGN Bhavan, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad

¶38

4 2 CCs to the GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court buildings (OUT).

¶39

5 2 CD copies

¶40

6 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

G. Krishna Murthy S/o Raja Rao v. The Sate of a.P., rep by Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Krishna Murthy S/o Raja Rao v. The Sate of a.P., rep by Principal Secretary to Government

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

Kotte Sadanandam, Vs G. Veeraiah , Gandi Veeraiah

Khaja Moinuddin , Khader Pasha, Vs Syed Ahmed Ali

T.K. Ramamani, Vs Akkala Rama Saibaba

The Miryalguda Municipality, Vs Yechuri Krishna Murthy

Biry Lalitha, Vs v. Sudhershan

Sri Belegam Rama Sankara Rao Vs The Commissioner