Disposed

M .Subba Lakshmi v. The Government of A.P

Telangana HC15 Oct 2012WP/32362/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal appointment of an incharge dealer. It held that without a crystallized government policy, no vested right exists for replacement, but permitted a temporary stopgap appointment pending permanent consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a representation and respondent directed to consider it for a temporary stopgap appointment of the petitioner.

M .Subba Lakshmi Vs The Government of A.P — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32362 of 2012

Dated 15.10.2012

Between:

M.Subba Lakshmi

…Petitioner

And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, Hyderabad and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.K.Raj Kumar

¶10

Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in appointing the fair price shop dealer of shop No.45 of Kaikaram Village, Kondiah Peta, Ungutur Mandal, West Godavari District, as incharge dealer in respect of shop No.23 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider her case for appointment as fair price shop dealer for shop No.23.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

The petitioner averred that her husband was appointed as fair price shop dealer of shop No.23 in the year 1982 and that till he died on 18.08.2012, he was continued as fair price shop dealer. Her grievance is that respondent No.4 has not considered her case for being appointed as the fair price shop dealer in place of her husband and that instead, respondent No.4 has kept the fair price shop dealer of shop No.45 as incharge dealer for shop No.23. She has placed reliance on an interim order dated 07.02.2012 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, wherein a direction was given to the respondents therein to consider appointment of one of the eligible family members of the deceased fair price shop dealers as permanent fair price shop dealers on compassionate grounds.

¶16

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has filed an undated copy of the letter purported to have been addressed by her to respondent No.4 requesting to appoint her as fair price shop dealer. The said letter does not contain proof of receipt by respondent No.4. Be that as it may, the interim order upon which the petitioner placed

¶17

reliance is the subject matter of a batch of writ appeals. It has come to light at the hearing that in the said batch, the Division Bench suspended the said interim order. Even though there appears to be some proposal at the Government level for considering the claims of the family members of the deceased dealers for appointment on compassionate grounds, so far the State Government has come up with any crystallized decision. In the absence of any such decision, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right for being appointed as dealer in place of her husband. However, considering the fact that her husband functioned as fair price shop dealer from 1982, his death would have plunged the petitioner and her family members into a deep financial crisis. Therefore, if the petitioner makes a proper representation to respondent No.4, the latter shall consider the claim of the petitioner for entrusting her with the distribution of essential commodities purely as a stopgap arrangement till the steps are taken by him to fill up the vacancy on permanent basis.

¶18

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any conclusive opinion on the right of the petitioner for being allowed to function as the fair price shop dealer, by permitting her to make a representation to respondent No.4 and with the direction to respondent No.4 to consider her representation for allowing her to function as a temporary dealer till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis.

¶19

As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.41244 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

[________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15^th October, 2012 GHN

M .Subba Lakshmi v. The Government of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M .Subba Lakshmi v. The Government of A.P

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

Mohammad Yousf, Vs The Chief Executive Officer

S.Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation/Registrar of

Professor S.K. Sood Vs National Council of Educational Research and Training

Kamisetty Yogamma W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.B.K. Educational Society Vs National Council for Teacher Education

U. Srinivasulu S/o. Peda Venkata Ramudu, Vs The Forest Section Officer