Allowed

Sri M.Bhoopal Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Feb 2012WP/15430/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held this writ petition to be squarely covered by W.P.No.11269 of 2009. It disposed of the petition in terms of that common order, directing respondents to include 1% labour cess in estimates for specific large works and prohibits deduction of cess unless included in estimates. An associated interim petition became infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to include 1% labour cess in estimates for works meeting specific criteria and prohibiting deduction of cess not included in estimates.

Sri M.Bhoopal Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.15430 of 2010

¶6

Between: M.Bhoopal Reddy

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 9 others

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.15430 of 2010

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

The petitioner prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to include 1% towards Labour Cess in all the works entrusted to the petitioner and for all the payments made after 26.06.2007 as per Clause(i) of U.O.No.4763/PFS/F8(A1)/98-4, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, dated 28.02.2008.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter

¶16

of this writ petition is squarely covered by a common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch, dated 22.10.2009.

¶17

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, however, submits that since large number of cases are already pending in this Court, at most, only interim order may be passed and cases may not be disposed of in terms of W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel at length.

¶19

The question, which came up for consideration in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch and the present writ petition, is absolutely one and the same. Hence, no purpose would be served by passing interim order now and thereafter disposing of the cases in terms of decision rendered in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶20

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch with the following directions:

¶21

(a) the respondents shall include 1% cess in the estimates for the works which they propose to undertake, if the work continues for or beyond twelve months and involves engagement of 10 workers or more; and

¶22

(b) the respondents shall not deduct any amount towards cess, unless the corresponding amount is included in the estimates.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.19428 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶26

Dated: 08.02.2012 Dsr

Sri M.Bhoopal Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M.Bhoopal Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Srinivasa Constructions Company Nagapur, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s v.Srinath and Company Rep.by its Managing Partner Vs The Engineer-in Chief Rws,Erramanjil,Hyderabad

B. Malyadri Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sai Constructions, Rep by its Managing Partner Vs The Government of Ap Rep by its Principal Secretary

M/s. Sri Harsha Constructions Vs The Government of A.P.

K. Balaiah, Vs The Sub Collector