Allowed

B.Uma Maheswar v. The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle

Telangana HC26 Dec 2011WP/14532/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed two identical writ petitions challenging a rejection order regarding the claim of contract labourers for regular appointment under B.P.Ms. No. 36. The court set aside the impugned rejection letters and directed the respondents to reconsider the cases and pass appropriate appointment orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned letters dated 06.09.2006; directed respondents to reconsider cases for appointment under B.P.Ms. No. 36 within two months.

B.Uma Maheswar Vs The Superintendent Engineer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.14532 and 14545 of 2007

¶6

Between:

¶7

B.Uma Maheswar M.Sudhakar

¶8

… Petitioners and

¶9

The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Sangareddy, Medak District and another.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶12

W.P. No.14532 and 14545 of 2007

¶13

COMMON ORDER:

¶14

These writ petitions namely W.P. No.14532 and 14545 of 2007 have been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to Lr.No.SE/PO/Admn/ D.No.1985/2006 and Lr.No.SE/PO/Admn/D.No.1089/2006, dated 06.09.2006, issued by the 1^st respondent, Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, and quash the same and declare it as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as L.D.C., under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 with all consequential benefits.

¶15

Both the writ petitions have been filed questioning the similar order dated 06.09.2006, wherein rejected the claim of the petitioners for absorption.

¶16

Though the writ petitioners are different, the respondents are one and the same and the subject matter is also one and the same, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as contract labourers in the respondents Company. While so, when they have filed applications for absorption, their cases have been rejected by different proceedings dated 21.11.2003. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners, along with others, have filed W.P. No.25554 of 2003 and this Court vide its order dated 12.08.2004 allowed the writ petition

¶18

directing the respondents to verify the service certificates issued by the contractors and countersigned by the officials of the Company with reference to the agreements under which contract labour are engaged as on 18.05.1997 and consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment in accordance with B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Assailing the same, the respondents Company filed an appeal in W.A. No.977 of 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 13.04.2005 dismissed the said writ appeal.

¶19

As the learned Single Judge in his order dated 12.08.044 directed the respondents as stated hereinabove and incompliance of the said direction, the respondents have issued impugned proceedings dated 06.09.2006, once again rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that five separate writ petitions have been filed namely W.P. No.14532 14534, 14536 and 14545 of 2007 and 9744 of 2008. All the five writ petitions are similar with each other. While so, this Court on 19.04.2011 allowed the W.P. No.14534, 14536 of 2007 and 9744 of 2008 and the respondents, in compliance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions, which have been allowed,

¶21

have considered their cases and issued appointment proceedings dated 14.11.2011. Therefore, he submits that these writ petitions may also be allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners herein and issue appointment orders.

¶22

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

In that view of the matter, recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, these writ petitions are allowed and

¶24

consequently the impugned letters dated 06.09.2006 are set aside with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

With the above direction, these writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶27

Date: 26.12.2011

¶28

Note: Issue C.C. in three days. B/o. LSK

B.Uma Maheswar v. The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Uma Maheswar v. The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle

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. Maheswar Reddy, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

B.Ashok Kumar Vs Watch Marketing Division, No.59, Bellary Road

P. Peeraiah, Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

M.Sudhakar Vs The Superintending Engineer, Operation circle

Valluru Subbulu Naidu Vs Mr. Valluru Sreedhar

E.Shankaraiah Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle