Disposed

P. Moinuddin Khan v. The Project Officer

Telangana HC22 Dec 2011WP/22936/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners deputed to Rajiv Vidya Mission sought mandamus directing respondents to pay Fixed Traveling, Mobile Bills, and Conveyance Allowances. The court did not adjudicate the merits but directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations regarding these allowances within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioners' representations regarding allowance payment and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

P. Moinuddin Khan Vs The Project Officer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

W.P.NO.22936 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the applicable Fixed Traveling Allowance, Mobile Bills and Conveyance Allowance to the petitioners working under Rajiv Vidya Mission as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.151, Finance (TA) Department, dated 4-52010, G.O.Ms.No.128 Finance (TA) Department, dated 17-4-2010, G.O.Ms.No.108, Finance (TA) Department, dated 7-4-2010 and G.O.Ms.No.10, Finance and Planning, dated 22-1-1993 and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the applicable Fixed Traveling Allowance, Mobile Bills and Conveyance Allowance to the petitioners from the date of their deputation. The brief facts of the case are that the first and second petitioners were appointed on 25-3-1987 and 262-1990 respectively in Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste Service

¶5

Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. While so, they were deputed to Rajiv Vidya Mission (Sarva Siksha Abhiyan). Subsequently, the said Corporation was merged with A.P. Education and Welfare

¶6

Infrastructure Development and in view of the merger, the entire staff of the Engineering wing of the Corporation are merged with A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation. From the date of deputation, the petitioners are entitled for the Fixed Traveling Allowance, Mobile Bills and conveyance allowance as per rules and regulations and in terms of the Government G.Os, which are existing as on today. Therefore, the petitioners have made representations dated 29-11-2010, 11-2-2011, 27-7-2011 to the second respondent and also to the third respondent. In similar circumstances, the first respondent after considering the representation of some of the employees in Anantapur District has paid the allowances

¶7

v id e orders dated 12-07-2010, 16-07-2010 and 15-42010. But, the respondents without assigning any reasons denied the claim of petitioners herein. Hence, the writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per clause IV of the proceedings of the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. Scheduled Caste Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, dated 14-22007, the salaries and all other allowances of the staff deputed from the Social Welfare Engineering Wing to the Serva Shiksha Abhiyan will be paid by the Education

¶9

Department and as such the petitioners are entitled for the allowances. He further contends that basing on the said clause, the petitioners have made representations dated 11-2-2011 and 27-7-2011, but no action has been taken thereon so far.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the respondents shall consider the representations said to have been made by the petitioners.

¶11

Having regard to the said submission, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners for providing them Fixed Traveling Allowance, Mobile Bills and Conveyance Allowance and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶13

__________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J

¶14

Note: Issue CC by one week. rkk Dated: 22-12-2011

P. Moinuddin Khan v. The Project Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Moinuddin Khan v. The Project Officer

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

Ch.Janardhan, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

K. Venkatesh Vs The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc.

T. Ravi Vs The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc.

Pola Srinivasa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Chandra Shekar, Vs The Divisional Manager

K.Murali Krishna Vs The Chairman, Statel Level Police Recruitment Board