J.L.Srinivas Vs Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

W.P.No.8866 of 2011

ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Mandamus to declare the termination order dated 31-52008 issued by the 2^nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner by providing him back wages and all consequential benefits.

¶5

It is the case of the petitioner that he is an Artiste. He was appointed as a Consultant vide proceedings dated 26-10-2007 on a monthly remuneration of Rs.20,000/- in Sri Venkateshwara Bhakthi Channel, TTD2^nd respondent. Subsequently, he was terminated vide proceedings dated 31-5-2008. Therefore, he made a representation dated 20-12-2010 to the 2^nd respondent seeking reinstatement into service or to give fresh appointment, but no action has been taken. Hence, the writ petition.

¶6

This writ petition came to be admitted on 30-082011. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without issuing any notice or assigning any reason, the 2^nd respondent issued the order impugned herein. He further submits that the petitioner has already made a

¶8

representation dated 20-12-2010 to the 2^nd respondent, but no action has been taken so far.

¶9

In that view of the matter, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 20-12-2010 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

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

¶11

__________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J

¶12

rkk Dated: 9-12-2011

¶13

Note: Issue CC by two days.

J.L.Srinivas v. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.L.Srinivas v. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

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

Pokala Veera Bhadra Rao and 26 Ors. Vs Gnrl Mngr. Andhra Bank Hyd and 2 Ors.

Md.Basheer, Vs The Divisional Manager

Smt. Akthari Begum Vs The Apsrtc.

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Mohd. Abdul Razzak

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs Syed Moinuddin Hussain

B.C.Adeppa, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh