Allowed

M. Rami Reddy v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and Commissioner

Telangana HC2 Aug 2011WP/18120/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding denial of Assistant Linemen post to workers implicated in an additional charge sheet. Court held appointment cannot be denied based solely on additional charge sheet. Directed appointment consideration and faster trial.

What did the court decide?

Directed society to consider petitioners for appointment subject to criminal case outcome; imposed costs on 3rd respondent; directed disposal of criminal case within three months.

M. Rami Reddy Vs The Registrar of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.18120 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners were initially appointed as Village Electricity Workers by the respondents from the years 1986-1991, respectively, and thereafter, as Helpers, on contract basis in the year 2006-07. The 1^st respondent accorded sanction for creation of 170 posts of Assistant Helpers, in the pay scale of Rs.5280-8505, through proceedings, dated 31.05.2011. The Managing Committee of the 2^nd respondent - society passed a resolution on 01.06.2011, to take necessary steps to fill the same with eligible and qualified Village Electricity Workers/Contract Helpers. The Managing Director of the society issued proceedings, dated 10.06.2011, appointing 126 Village Electricity Workers/Contract Helpers, as Assistant Helpers. The petitioners, however, were not extended that benefit.

¶5

The petitioners contend that the 3^rd respondent, who was associated with the Managing Committee of the Society for some time, was inimical towards the employees and some of the employees have gheraoed him in November, 2006. On a complaint submitted by the 3^rd respondent, the P.S. Sircilla registered F.I.R.No.431 of 2006 and the case is being tried as C.C.No.722 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sircilla. They assert that though their names did not figure in the FIR, or the charge sheet that was filed in the case, the

¶6

3^rd respondent prevailed upon the investigating agency and got the names of the petitioners mentioned in an additional charge sheet, and on that basis, the society is not extending the benefit of appointment to them.

¶7

On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the Managing Director of the

¶8

society filed a counter-affidavit, stating that though the petitioners are otherwise eligible to be considered for appointment as Assistant Linemen, the further steps were not taken, on account of their involvement in a criminal case.

¶9

The 3^rd respondent got himself impleaded. He states that the very creation of posts of Assistant Linemen was not in the interests of the society and that he fought at various levels to prevent the unnecessary expenditure to the society. He has furnished the particulars of proceedings initiated by him.

¶10

The petitioners herein filed counter-affidavit to the application filed by the 3^rd respondent. They state that the 3^rd respondent is in the habit of instituting cases against one person or the other and indulging in blackmailing. It is urged that on account of frivolous litigation instituted by him, the society as well as individuals were made to suffer.

¶11

Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondent No.1,

¶12

Sri Ch.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, and Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶13

The petitioners are in the service of the society for the past several decades, in one capacity or the other. After prolonged correspondence and pursuit, in the matter, the 1^st respondent accorded sanction for creation of posts of Assistant Linemen. From the beginning, there was a clear understanding to the effect that the posts would be filled by the eligible Village Electricity Workers/Contract Helpers. The petitioners are eligible to be considered, in all respects.

¶14

Within a short time from the date of sanction accorded by the

¶15

1^st respondent for creation of posts, the society issued orders of appointment to as many as 126 persons. Such facility was denied to persons, who figured as accused in C.C.No.722 of 2007. The C.C. in turn originated from a complaint submitted by the 3^rd respondent.

¶16

The names of the petitioners were not even mentioned in the complaint, submitted by the 3^rd respondent, much less in the F.I.R. The charge sheet was also confined to the persons, who according to the investigation, were found to have indulged in the gherao of the 3^rd respondent or other related activities. For one reason or the other, the C.C. is not disposed of, for the past four years. The petitioners were implicated in the additional charge sheet. Obviously, it is on account of the efforts made by the 3^rd respondent, who is bent upon causing harm to the employees. The narration of the events in the affidavit filed by him and the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners, discloses that he has become a source of friction, if not nuisance to the society.

¶17

Whatever may be the justification for the society in denying appointment to those persons, whose names figured in the F.I.R and charge sheet, there does not exist any basis for it to deny the appointment to the petitioners, who are dragged into the controversy only in the form of an additional charge sheet.

¶18

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the 2^nd respondentsociety is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as Assistant Linemen without reference to the fact that their names are mentioned in the additional charge sheet. If they are appointed, it shall be subject to the out come of the criminal case. A sum of Rs.3,000/- is imposed as costs against the 3^rd respondent to be paid to the

¶19

2^nd respondent within four weeks, from today, for the vindictive approach exhibited by him against the petitioners and the 2^nd

¶20

respondent. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sircilla, shall dispose of C.C.No.722 of 2007 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶21

_______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:02.08.2011

¶22

Note: The Registry shall mark a copy of this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sircilla. (B/o) GJ

M. Rami Reddy v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rami Reddy v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and Commissioner

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

Dr.N.Harinath, Vs United India Insurance Company Limited

M.Anasurya Vs The Collector/Chairman

T. Mahesh Vs The Northern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd.

Burla Sreelakshmi Vs Tanikonda Venkata Subbamma

Mangamuri Hanumantha Rao Vs Mangamuri Venkata Krishna Rao

Smt. P. Jayamma, W/o. C. Ganesham, Vs The Transmission Corporation of Ap Ltd.