Disposed

Lanka Sankara Rao v. Godavari Grameena Bank

Telangana HC17 Dec 2012WP/4073/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice N. Ravi Shankar disposed of Writ Petition 4073 of 2006 wherein the petitioner sought regularization of part-time service. The Court directed the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's case for appointment in the notification of Office Attendant posts and take past service into account if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's case for appointment to one of the Office Attendant posts and take past service into account if eligible.

Lanka Sankara Rao Vs Godavari Grameena Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 4073 OF 2006

¶6

Between: Lanka Sankara Rao … Petitioner V/s. Godavari Grameena Bank, Represented by its Chairman, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Dr.K.Lakshminarasimha

¶7

The Court made the following : [Order follows]

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION No. 4073 OF 2006

¶10

O R D E R :

¶11

This matter is taken up at the request of both sides.

¶12

2. Heard Sri P.Venkatrama Sarma, learned counsel representing Dr.P.B. Vijay kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶13

3. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents

¶14

i.e., Bank authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner.

¶15

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as part-time

¶16

sweeper-cum-messenger in the third respondent-bank from 1993 onwards till 2005. Since the petitioner was not recruited to any regular post in accordance with rules, the bank authorities did not regularize him. It is not necessary to go into this controversy now. It is brought to my notice that a notification has been issued in 2011 by third respondent for recruitment to the post of Office Attendants [Multipurpose]. The third respondent bank has sent a letter/requisition dated 20-8-2011 to the District Employment Officer, Guntur, East Godaavari and West Godavari requesting them to send the candidates for recruitment of 78 Office Attendant Posts under Group “C” category. The petitioner says that he is also eligible to be considered for the said post and hence a direction may be given to the third

¶17

respondent to consider his case for one of the said posts. Accordingly, the third respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to one of the said posts in accordance with the rules governing appointment to the same, if he is eligible. His past service may also be taken into account

¶18

provided that is permissible having regard to his other qualifications.

¶19

5. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶20

______________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR.

¶21

17/12/2012 I s L

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶23

WRIT PETITION No. 4073 OF 2006

¶24

CIRCULATION No. Date:17/12/2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

Lanka Sankara Rao v. Godavari Grameena Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lanka Sankara Rao v. Godavari Grameena Bank

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

P.Govindiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Jaffar Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

M.A.P. Rao Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Jacob Mudi Vs The Deputy Inspector General / Nz

The Project Officer, Itda, for ( Ptg-Chenchu), Vs R. Lingamaiah

The Project Officer, Itda, for Vs K. Sekhara Reddy