Dismissed

Budharapu Gopal, v. The Assistant General Manager

Telangana HC6 Sept 2012WP/19813/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking regularization for peons who worked from 1992/1996 until 1999. Relying on Umadevi and stating the internal letter was insufficient, the court held the claim misconceived but permitted a representation regarding age relaxation.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondent-Bank regarding age relaxation for future recruitment.

Budharapu Gopal, Vs The Assistant General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.19813 and 20420 of 1999

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners claim regularization in the posts of peons in the respondent-Bank contending that they have been working as such ever since 1992 and 1996 till they were asked not to report to duty in 1999.

¶5

The affidavit does not contain details of the number of days the petitioners had worked or whether they are entitled for protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Reliance is placed by the petitioners on a letter dated 13.03.1998, addressed by the second respondent (Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Dilshuknagar Branch, Hyderabad) to the first respondent (Assistant General Manager, Region I, State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office, Hyderabad) wherein the dates of birth, educational qualifications, and the period when the petitioners were initially engaged in the respondent-Bank, are detailed.

¶6

In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondentBank, it is contended that the letter dated 13.03.1998 is an internal communication, and cannot be relied upon. Reference is made by the respondent to several judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. UP State Law Officers Association^[1] ,

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Suresh Kumar Varma^[2] , and

¶8

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi^[3] to contend that the petitioners had no right to claim regularization. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners claim for regularization is misconceived.

¶9

Sri U.S.R.Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the observations, in Umadevi³ , would enable the petitioners to seek relaxation in age for the purpose of recruitment to subsequent posts, if any. This contention is wholly extraneous to the relief sought for in these Writ Petitions. Sri U.S.R.Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would further submit that the petitioners, atleast, be permitted to make a representation to the respondent-Bank pointing out the observations in Umadevi³ which enable them to claim relaxation in age for appearing in a regular recruitment. It is made clear that, in case, the petitioners submit any such representation, the respondent-Bank shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶10

The Writ Petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶11

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J

¶12

Date:06.09.2012 usd

¶13

[1] AIR 1994 SC 1654

¶14

[2] 1996(1) SCR 972

¶15

[3] 2006 (4) SCC 1

Budharapu Gopal, v. The Assistant General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budharapu Gopal, v. The Assistant General Manager

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

Bhandara Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Vs -

Amaravati Thermal Power Private Limited, Vs -

M/s Nsl Sez (Chennai) Private Limited Vs -

K. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs N/s. Praga Tools Limited

B.Sankar, Vs Food Corporation of India

The Smart Security Service Pvt, Ltd.,, Vs Sri M.Venkata Rao