Disposed

M.I. Baig v. Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director

Telangana HC10 Nov 2011WP/29840/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Leading Hand, alleging violation of constitutional rights due to delayed action and non-consideration of his applications.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent-authorities to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to Leading Hand and pass appropriate orders within one month.

M.I. Baig Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.29840 of 2011 Dated 10-11-2011

¶2

Between: M.I.Baig.

¶3

…Petitioner.

¶4

And:

¶5

APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director,Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and others.

¶6

…Respondents.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.29840 of 2011 ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Leading Hand as well as not disposing his representation dated 26-5-2010 and 6-9-2011 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider his case for promoting him to the post of leading hand in the body shop from the feeder post of panel beater.

¶9

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

¶10

He joined the services of the respondents’ corporation as Kalasi on 26-02-1976, under the deceased employee’s quota on regular basis. Subsequently, he was promoted as Panel Beater on 26-10-1979 and since then, he has been working so for the last more than 32 years without any promotion in the body of the 4^th respondent. Though he is entitled for the post of Leading Hand as per the APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Reg.1966, as well as Circular No.PD36/92, dated 25-051992, the respondents promoted his juniors namely D.Mallesham and P.P.Prasad Rao to the post of Panel

¶11

Beater on 1-7-1998 and 7-7-1999, respectively. In this connection, he made representations dated 22-032010 and 26-05-2010 to the 4^th respondent. The said representations are not disposed of so far.

¶12

Subsequently, he made another representation dated 6-9-2011 to the 4^th respondent marking a copy of it to the respondents 2 and 3, but they did not take any action. Therefore, he is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as he has no other effective alternative remedy to question the action of the respondents.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though he is entitled for the post of Leading Hand as per the APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Reg.1966 as well as Circular No.PD36/92, dated 25-05-1992, the respondents promoted his juniors namely D.Mallesham a n d P.P.Prasad Rao to the post of Panel Beater on 1-7-1998 and 7-7-1999, respectively. In this connection, though he made representations to the 4^th respondent, he did not consider his case so far.

¶15

Learned counsel further contended that again he made another representation dated 6-9-2011 to the 4^th respondent marking a copy of it to the respondents 2 and 3, but they did not take any action.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the 4^th respondent may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶17

Perused the material available on record.

¶18

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the even though he is entitled for promotion to the post of Leading Hand, the respondent-authorities have not taken his entitlement into consideration and apart from that, they

¶19

have promoted his juniors namely D.Mallesham and P.P.Prasad Rao to the post of Panel Beater on 1-7-1998 and 7-7-1999, respectively.

¶20

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition coupled with the arguments of the learned counsel, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Leading Hand in the body shop from the feeder post of panel beater in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 10-11-2011. Dvs

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.29840 of 2011

¶25

Dated 10-11-2011

M.I. Baig v. Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I. Baig v. Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director

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

M. Nagendra Vs The Regional Manager

G.Narasimha Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K.Shivaiah Vs The Divisional Manager

D. Srinivasa Rao Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Vc and MD

J.Bhaskar, Vs Apsrtc, Rep.by its Managing Director

Sd. Aktar Vs The Regional Manager