Disposed

R. Srinivas v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Secunderabad Division

Telangana HC11 Nov 2011WP/29865/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a conductor appointed on contract, challenged the inaction of the Railway corporation in considering his application for regularization dated 14.09.2011 while his junior colleagues were regularized. The court directed the corporation to consider the representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.09.2011 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

R. Srinivas Vs The Regional Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.29865 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

R.Srinivas … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Secunderabad Division, JBS., Picket, Secunderabad and another … Respondents

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶9

W.P. No.29865 of 2011

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner for regularization on par with petitioner colleagues and juniors as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by considering the representation dated 14.09.2011.

¶12

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Conductor on contract basis in the respondents Corporation in the month of February, 2008 at Medchal Depot. After some time, the 2^nd respondent, Depot Manager, issued termination order dated 17.12.2008 on the ground of certain cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager and the same was rejected on 24.01.2009 without assigning any reasons. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the 1^st respondent, Regional Manager, and the same was also rejected on 06.06.2009. Thereafter, having no other alternative, he filed W.P. No.27491 of 2009 and the said writ petition, while setting aside the impugned order therein, was disposed of by this Court on 27.12.2009 leaving it open to the Corporation to initiate fresh proceedings following due process of law. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service by order dated 12.07.2010 of the 2^nd respondent.

¶13

While the things stood thus, it is submitted that some of the candidates, who were appointed along with the petitioner and his juniors services were regularized and whereas the services of the petitioner was not regularized. Therefore, he made a representation dated 14.09.2011 with the request to consider his case for regularization but no action has been initiated thereon. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the colleagues of the petitioner and his juniors were regularized but the case of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.09.2011 to the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent did not pass any orders thereon. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶15

The learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that it is not know whether the services of the juniors of the petitioner were regularized or not but however, he submitted that having regard to the fact stated by the petitioner in his affidavit that he made a representation to the 2^nd respondent and the same is pending with him, the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side,

¶18

this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation dated 14.09.2011 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There

¶20

shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.11.2011 LSK

R. Srinivas v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Secunderabad Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Srinivas v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Secunderabad Division

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

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

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

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

Duba Venkata Ramana Vs The District Collector/District Programme Coordinator

B. Srinu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp Limited

Keluth Dasma Vs The a.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited