Dismissed

Ch. Satyanarayana v. A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Telangana HC7 Apr 2010WP/6809/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a declaration that the non-payment of his salary since September 2009 was illegal. The court observed that due to his daily-wage status, salary does not apply, but directed the respondents to pay admitted arrears of Rs. 25,520/- within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay arrears of Rs. 25,520/- to petitioner within four weeks. No order as to costs.

Ch. Satyanarayana Vs A.P. Eastern Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.6809 of 2010

¶3

Date: April 7, 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ch. Satyanarayana, S/o. Sambamurthy, aged about 50 years, R/o.D.No.65-5-9, Anandanagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., represented by Chief General Manager (Expenditure), Corporate Office, Visakhapatnam, and two others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not paying salaries to the petitioner from the month of September, 2009 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman on daily-wage basis in the respondents-company. When his services were discontinued, he raised an industrial dispute and the Government referred the matter vide G.O.Rt.No.192, dated 20-11-1986. The Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.136 of 1986, by order dated 28-111996, directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Thereafter, he filed W.P.No.2809 of 1997 seeking regularization of his services. No directions were given for regularization, but this court, while disposing of the said writ petition, by order dated 18-01-2008, observed that so long as the petitioner is continued; he is entitled to minimum wages, as prescribed.

¶13

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has been continuously working from September 2009, he is not being paid salary.

¶14

On instructions, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that as the petitioner is a Watchman working on daily wages, he is not entitled to any salary. Further, it is stated that some dues, on account of daily wages, are payable to the petitioner, but the same could not be paid for want of administrative sanction. It is admitted by the on learned standing counsel that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of wages to the tune of Rs.25,520/-.

¶15

As rightly pointed by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, since the petitioner is a Watchman working on daily wages, the question of paying him regular salary would not arise.

¶16

As much as it is admitted on behalf of the respondents that an amount of Rs.25,520/-, towards arrears of wages, is payable to the

¶17

petitioner, without going into the quantum of amount which the petitioner is entitled to, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to pay the aforesaid admitted amount, towards arrears of daily wages, to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, within a maximum period of four weeks from today. No order as to costs.

¶18

(R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)

¶19

April 7, 2010 N.B. Furnish C.C. in three days B.O. MRR

Ch. Satyanarayana v. A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Satyanarayana v. A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

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

R.Ramulu Vs The Mandal Parishad Development officer, M.P.Telkapally

M.Upender REddy Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, rep.by its

A.Manjula Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

V.Ramesh Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Tummala Pitchaiah Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Special Chief Secretary

K. Srinivas Vs The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.