Dismissed

Battepati Ramamohan Rao v. The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC9 Mar 2012WP/6504/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order dismissing a writ petition challenging the A.P. Administrative Tribunal's rejection of interim relief in a matter regarding the reliving of teachers exceeding three years as Mandal Resource Persons. The Court found no merit in the claim that service need be continuous without breaks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Battepati Ramamohan Rao Vs The Govt of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.6504 of 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah)

¶4

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 05-03-2012 passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), in rejecting interim relief while admitting O.A.No.1659 of 2012.

¶5

The petitioners herein filed O.A.No.1659 of 2012 before the Tribunal questioning the proceedings dated 04-02-2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent herein, whereby and whereunder the 2^nd respondent instructed the District Educational Officers/Project Officers to relive such of the Mandal Resource Persons, who have completed three years of Service as Mandal Resource Persons.

¶6

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were originally appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers and were deputed to work as Mandal Resource Persons in the month of February, 2009. Subsequently, on account of teachers transfer counselling, they were transferred to some other place and there also, they were continued as Mandal Resource Persons. While so, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings dated 04-02-20102 instructing all the District Educational Officers/Project Officers to relieve such of the Mandal Resource Persons, who have completed three years of service as Mandal Resource Persons. The grievance of the petitioners is that the date for counting three years shall be reckoned from August, 2009, but not from February, 2009, as the petitioners have been working as Mandal Resource Persons on other duty right from February, 2009.

¶7

We are not inclined to accept the said contention, since no proceedings are placed before this Court to the effect that the said three years period shall be the continuous period without even any short break. Admittedly, as the petitioners three years period expired

¶8

by February 2012, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J

¶11

________________ K.G.SHANKAR , J Date : 09-03-2012 Prv

¶12

. While so, they have joined on 20-02-2009 but they have been relieved on 27-08.2009. It is stated that after joining they have been relieved to participate for transfer counselling in the month of August, 2009 and two days after reliving they rejoined as Mandal Resource persons. It is stated that three years period shall be taken when they have rejoined in August, 2009, but not from February, 2008.

¶13

It is stated that pursuant to the said proceedings, the concerned Mandal Officers relieved the petitioners herein from the Mandal Resource persons to their parent Department as Secondary Grade Teachers as they have already completed three years of service as Mandal Resource Persons. It is stated that as per the proceedings,

¶14

referred to 1 and 2 in the impugned proceedings, dated 04-02-2012, the Secondary Grade Teaches, who have been working for a period of three years shall be repatriated to their parent Department.

Battepati Ramamohan Rao v. The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Battepati Ramamohan Rao v. The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal 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

The Divisional Forest Officer, Vs Sri v. Baba Saheb

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Vs T. Surender

B.G.N.R. Anjaneyulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P. Veera Raghuvulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Chinna Narshima Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its

P. Eswaraiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal