Disposed

S. Malliah v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC15 Mar 2010WP/11919/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging non-promotion. Noting the petitioner had been promoted during the pendency, the court granted liberty to claim seniority and adjourned the matter for the corporation to consider representations.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make representation for seniority claim; respondents to consider same and pass appropriate orders.

S. Malliah Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 11919 OF 1999

Between:

S.Malliah

..... PETITIONER

AND

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its ViceChairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hydeabad and others

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No. 11919 of 1999

¶17

O R D E R :

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in not promoting the petitioner as Security Head Guard in Karimnagar Zone, but on the other hand, promoting the 4^th respondent, who was allegedly junior to the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶19

When the matter is taken up for consideration it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that during the pendency of this writ petition by order dated 07.01.2000, the writ petitioner was promoted as Security Head Guard in the time scale of Rs.2405-77-3483-90-4113-95-5158.

¶20

Having regard to the subsequent event, the petitioner is granted liberty to make an appropriate representation before the Corporation with regard to his claim for seniority, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is made within the time fixed above, the respondents 1 to 3 shall consider the

¶21

same and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner, 4^th respondent as well as all other concerned parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶22

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Ivd

¶24

_____________ Date: 15.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J.

S. Malliah v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Malliah v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Uma Devi Vs Y Sri Laxmi

M.A Jaya Raju Vs The Andhra Pradesh Schuduled Castes

A Ravi Kumar Vs M John Wesley

Smt M Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Sri P Venkatesham

Smt. Kharimunnisa Begum, Vs The District Coop Officer

Chaganti Venkata Bhaskar, Vs C.Chandresekhar Reddy