Dismissed

D.S. Swarna Latha, v. The General Manager, South Central Railway

Telangana HC8 Oct 2010WP/19612/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging alleged sexual harassment, the Court noted the employer had implemented Visakha guidelines via amended Service Rules. As the disputed parties had settled the matter amicably and respondents undertook not to interfere with the petitioner's career or personal life, the writ petition was closed without specific orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

D.S. Swarna Latha, Vs The General Manager, South… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19612 OF 2007

¶3

BETWEEN:

¶4

D.S. Swarna Latha, W/o. Late Titus, Technician Grade III, Paint Shop, Carriage Repi\air Shop, Settipally, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶5

…. PETITIONER

¶6

And

¶7

1. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, and others.

¶8

…. RESPONDENTS

¶9

Counsel for petitioners: Sri P. Sridhar Reddy

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri R.S. Murthy, S.C. for Railways Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri G.P. for Home Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8: Sri K. Maheswara Rao

¶11

The Court made the following order:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to respondents 1 to 5 to implement the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in Visakha and others v. State of Rajasthan and others^[1] to prevent sexual harassment of working woman in the work place at which the petitioner is working.

¶14

The petitioner is a Technician Grade-III, working in paint Shop Carriage Repair Shop, South Central Railway, Tirupati. She was appointed on compassionate grounds in the place of her deceased husband. Her grievance is that the respondent authorities, i.e., respondents 6 to 8 have been making sexual advances taking advantage of her loneliness as a widow, and she has often faced indecent comments and obscene gestures. Contending that though as per the directions and guidelines of the Apex Court issued in Visakha and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) it is incumbent on the first respondent to constitute a Committee to prevent sexual harassment at the work place, the first respondent has not constituted such a Committee nor prevented occurrence of such harassment in the hands of respondents 6 to 8, this writ petition has been filed.

¶15

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, it has been stated that the Railway Administration has already implemented the said directions of the Apex Court by amending the Railway Service Conduct Rules by adding Rule 3C vide Railway Board’s Lr.No.E(D&A)97/GS/1-4, dated 13.05.1998. The Railway Board has also issued Lr.No.E(D&A)97/GS/1-4, dated 1.07.1998 giving specific

¶16

instructions to all the Zonal Railways including South Central Railway to implement the guidelines and norms laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred case and Compliance Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment against working women is also constituted at the Head Quarters level with woman officer as Chairman and outside eminent woman, namely, Director ASMITA Resource Centre for Women, Marredpally, Secunderabad as one of the members, in addition to another Railway Officer as Member. In view of the specific averment to the above effect, the main grievance of the petitioner has already been complied with.

¶17

As regards the specific complaint against respondents 6 to 8, who are alleged to have harassed the petitioner, counters have been filed by respondents 6 to 8 stating that the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 heeding to the advise of the elders and well-wishers of both sides, have settled the matter amicably. Respondents 6 to 8 have also undertaken that they will not interfere or meddle in any manner either with the career or personal life of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 are also personally present before this Court and admitted that the matter was amicably settled between them. The undertaking of respondents 6 to 8 is placed on record.

¶18

The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 8^th October, 2010 Js.

¶20

[1] AIR 1997 SC 3011

D.S. Swarna Latha, v. The General Manager, South Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.S. Swarna Latha, v. The General Manager, South Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vennapusa Seshi Reddy, Vs The Principal Secretary

M/s. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, company Regd under Vs The Controller Legal Metrology, a.P., Weights and

Syed Shakeel Quadri Vs The Deputy Commisisoner of Police, West Zone

Mallipudi Tatayya , Yakob S/o Venkanna, Vs Panchayat Secretary, Koyyetipadu Village

Chunduru Tirupathaiah Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole

The West Godavari District Police Employees Cooperative Vs The Gram Panchayat, Satrampadu, Eluru Mandal