Disposed

B. Ramulu Hyderabad v. the M.D A.P. State Co-Op Rural Irrign Corp. Ltd. and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC3 Nov 2011WP/27386/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning non-payment of salary, the undersigned Justice directed the respondent corporation to consider the petitioner's pending representation dated 19.09.2011 and pass appropriate orders within one month before disposing of the petition with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2011 and pass appropriate orders within one month.

B. Ramulu Hyderabad Vs the M.D A.P. State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.27386 of 2011

¶6

Between: B.Ramulu … Petitioner And The Managing Director, A.P.State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited and others.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶9

W.P. No.27386 of 2011

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salary for the period from 11.02.2010 to 30.09.2010, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the bye-laws and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period from 11.02.2010 to 30.09.2010.

¶12

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver on regular basis in the 1^st respondent’s Corporation i.e., A.P. State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, on 01.09.1983 and posted at the Head Office, Hyderabad. Subsequently, on 16.11.2006, he was deputed to in the pashie of Additional Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and he worked there up to 17.02.2010 and thereafter he was repatriated to his parent institution by virtue of R.O.Rts.No.405, dated 17.02.2010 and he was continued up to his retirement i.e. on 22.09.2010.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel.

¶14

The only grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid salary for the period from 11.02.2010 to 30.09.2010 though he performed his duties.

¶15

As the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in connection with the relief sought for in the writ petition, the petitioner made representation dated 19.09.2011 and the same is pending with the 1^st respondent, in that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 19.09.2011, stated to have been made by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 03.11.2011 LSK

B. Ramulu Hyderabad v. the M.D A.P. State Co-Op Rural Irrign Corp. Ltd. and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Ramulu Hyderabad v. the M.D A.P. State Co-Op Rural Irrign Corp. Ltd. and 2 Othrs

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

Patnala Kumar Vs The Vizianagaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

K. Shyam Kumar, Vs The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager

Gadipe Surya Chandra Bhaskara Tarzan, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

T. Vijaya Babu, Vs The Railway Protection Force

MD Arif Pasha, Vs The Business Manager

Ms Farzana Begum Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh