Dismissed

Y.Padmanabh Shastri v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012WP/28894/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition wherein a former contract cook sought implementation of a memo for employment regularization. The court held that filing the present petition without challenging the earlier rejection of regularization and subsequent removal order was not a proper approach.

What did the court decide?

No implementation of the memo or regularization was granted. The writ petition was dismissed.

Y.Padmanabh Shastri Vs Government of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

W.V.M.P.No.227 of 2011 in W.P.M.P.No.36828 of 2010 AND W.P.M.P.No.36227 of 2012 in WRIT PETITION No.28894 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No.28894 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Ms B.Tara Sujatha, learned counsel appearing for Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

¶5

2. When the vacate stay petition and the petition for amending the prayer came up for hearing, the main writ petition has been taken up for disposal having regard to the controversy.

¶6

3. The petitioner earlier worked as a contract cook in the third respondent Devasthanam. He filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent to implement a memo in L.Dis.No.C1/5318/ 2010 dated 10.05.2010. By the said memo, the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad, directed the third respondent to utilize the services of two persons for the posts mentioned therein on contract basis for a further period of 11 months and also to take steps to fill up the vacancies of religious staff on regular basis duly following the procedure after obtaining permission from the competent authorities as it is priority item.

¶7

4. It is seen from the record filed by the learned Standing Counsel for Endowments Department along with his vacate stay petition WVMP No.227 of 2011 that even before filing of the writ petition, the petitioner made a representation dated 18.04.2010 to the Endowments

¶8

Commissioner through proper channel for regularization of his services in the post of cook. On that representation the Endowments Commissioner passed an order dated 15.05.2010 rejecting his representation observing that there is no question of regularization of the services of the petitioner.

¶9

5. This writ petition is filed on 16.11.2010. It is also seen that the third respondent by his proceedings dated 24.10.2010 pursuant to the above order of the Commissioner removed the petitioner from service and sent that the removal order for service on him. The endorsements on the said removal order would read that as the house of the petitioner was locked it could not be served on him. Instead of challenging the aforesaid orders i.e. rejecting his regularization and removal order, the petitioner cannot file this writ petition for implementation of the memo dated 10.05.2010. This cannot also be said to be a proper approach on the part of the petitioner.

¶10

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the above ground leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies separately against the order refusing regularization to him. No costs. W.V.M.P.No.227 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.36227 of 2012 are disposed of in terms of the above result of the writ petition.

¶11

_______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶12

7^th December 2012 CVRK

Y.Padmanabh Shastri v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Padmanabh Shastri v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

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

Appala Konda, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

L. Bhoopathi Reddy, Vs The Depot Manager

Md.Rafiq, Vs a.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Deputy Executive

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development

R. Malla Reddy, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribnal-cum- Labour Court

Smt. D. Ramya Vs Vijay Charan Rao