Allowed

Y.S.R.a.P.Genco Employees Union, v. The Apgenco

Telangana HC8 Oct 2012WP/23600/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent utility to decide within one month whether to extend privileges and benefits to the petitioner Union on par with other similarly situated unions, as existing renewal mechanisms lacked legal basis.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide on petitioner's request for extending privileges on par with other unions within one month; writ petition disposed of.

Y.S.R.a.P.Genco Employees Union, Vs The Apgenco — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.23600 of 2012

¶3

Date: 08.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Y.S.R.A.P.GENCO Employees Union, rep.by its General Secretary, Kalamalla, Kadapa District. … Petitioner And

¶6

The APGENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. G.V. Shivaji Counsel for the respondents : Mr. C. Raghu Standing counsel for AP GENCO

¶8

The Court made the following :

¶9

Order:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the privilege and benefits to the petitioner Union as are being extended to the other similarly situated trade unions, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Law Officer of respondent No.1 Corporation.

¶12

At the hearing, Mr. C. Raghu, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that three unions were recognized during the existence of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and that after the expiry of the period for which they were recognized, no fresh elections were held for recognition. He has further submitted that the recognition is being renewed from time to time by respondent No.1 in respect of the said three unions.

¶13

When this Court has asked whether respondent No.1 can renew the recognition, the learned standing counsel candidly admitted that no provision exists in law by which such recognition can be renewed. He has, however, submitted that the request of the petitioner along with the

¶14

other similar requests made by similarly placed unions will be considered by the respondents and a decision in this regard will be taken at the earliest.

¶15

In the light of the above submissions of the learned standing counsel, the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, on the request of the petitioner Union for extending the privilege and benefits to it, on par with the unions which are either not recognized or their recognition has expired, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶17

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30147 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶18

__________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 8^th October, 2012 cbs

¶19

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶20

Writ Petition No.23600 of 2012

¶21

8^th October, 2012

¶22

cbs

Y.S.R.a.P.Genco Employees Union, v. The Apgenco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.S.R.a.P.Genco Employees Union, v. The Apgenco

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

Y.Adithya, Vs Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar

Roza-e-Hazrath Shazada Vali Vs The Chairman

Lankireddy Venkata Rami Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

Sri Lakshmi Traders, Vs The District Collector

P.Liyakahat Vs Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer

Smt.Thigiripalli Nirmala Kumari Vs The Joint Collecto.r