Dismissed

Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC14 Dec 2011WP/30574/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court by order directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent company seeking transfer within four weeks, and directed the company to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law before dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed to submit fresh representation within four weeks; respondent company directed to consider and dispose of the case in accordance with law.

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs The Chairman and Managing… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30574 of 2011 Dated 14-12-2011

¶2

Between:

¶3

Mohammed Ibrahim.

¶4

…Petitioner.

¶5

And:

¶6

The Chairman and Managing Director, the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Hyderabad.

¶7

…Respondent.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.30574 of 2011

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondentCompany in disposing of petitioner’s representation dated 24-2-2011 requesting to transfer him from Ramagundam to Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent-Company to dispose of the same expeditiously.

¶12

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He is an ex-service man from army and at present, he has been working as EP (Fitter/Mechanic) at OCP-III, Ramagundam since 1996. He made a representation dated 24-2-2011 to the respondent-company requesting to transfer him from Ramagundam to Hyderabad on the ground that his son is mentally retarded and his wife is a cardiac patient and they require constant medical investigation and attention by special doctors at Hyderabad and at present, he has been residing at Ramagumdam. His wife took treatment at Yesoda Hospital on several occasions for different ailments.

¶13

He has to take his son and wife to the hospital at

¶14

Hyderabad very frequently by obtaining leave from the respondent-company authorities. He made clear in his representation mentioned above to the effect that if his case cannot be considered, the authorities may be pleased to revert him and post him to anywhere at Hyderabad. Due to the illness of his son and wife, he is in deep mental agony. In this view of the matter, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Company.

¶16

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if it is not possible to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the present post, the petitioner requested the company authorities to revert him and post him anywhere in Hyderabad so as to enable him to get the treatment to his son and wife. Hence, the inaction of the respondent-company in transferring him to Hyderabad is illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

On the other hand, it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent-company that the petitioner may be directed to approach the concerned company authorities personally and make his representation.

¶18

Perused the material available on record.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and in view of the representation dated 24-2-2011 alleged to have been submitted to the respondent-company which representation is stated to have been pending still with the respondent-Corporation, I feel it just and proper to direct the petitioner by giving liberty to him to approach the respondent-company authorities personally to submit his fresh representation stating all his grievances within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such submission of his representation, the respondent-

¶20

company authorities are directed to consider his case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 14-12-2011. Dvs

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶23

W.P.No.30574 of 2011

¶24

Dated 14-12-2012.

Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Chairman and Managing Director

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

Mr. M. Nagabhushanam Vs Andhra PRadesh Social Welfare Residential

No.065026813 G.D Constable Recruit Vs Sri C.S.Rao, Deputy Inspector General of Police

G.Seetaramaiah Vs The Apgenco

K. Julies Seezer Vs M. Papaiah

M/s.Modern Food Industrial (India) Limited, Ida Vs Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

N.a.Ch.Sekhar, Vs The Regional Manager