Disposed

Satti Subba Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Telangana HC3 Feb 2012WP/9682/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Special Original Jurisdiction, disposed of the writ petition concerning the inclusion of Labour Cess in government works estimates in the same terms as a common order in W.P.No.11269 of 2009, directing respondents to include the cess in estimates for specific works.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to include 1% cess in estimates for specific works; deduction prohibited unless amount included.

Satti Subba Reddy Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.9682 of 2010

¶6

Between: Satti Subba Reddy and 8 others

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

The Government of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 44 others

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.9682 of 2010

¶14

O R D E R:

¶15

The petitioners pray that a direction be issued to the respondents to include 1% towards Labour Cess in all the works entrusted to the petitioner and for all the payments made after 26.06.2007 as per Clause(i) of U.O.No.4763/PFS/F8(A1)/98-4, Finance (Works & Projects) Department, dated 28.02.2008.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter

¶17

of this writ petition is squarely covered by a common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch, dated 22.10.2009.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents, however, submits that since large number of cases are already pending in this Court, at most, only interim order may be passed and cases may not be disposed of in terms of W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel at length.

¶20

The question, which came up for consideration in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch and the present writ petition, is absolutely one and the same. Hence, no purpose would be served by passing interim order now and thereafter disposing of the cases in terms of decision rendered in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch.

¶21

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as in W.P.No.11269 of 2009 and batch with the following directions:

¶22

(a) the respondents shall include 1% cess in the estimates for the works which they propose to undertake, if the work continues for or beyond twelve months and involves engagement of 10 workers or more; and

¶23

(b) the respondents shall not deduct any amount towards cess, unless the corresponding amount is included in the estimates.

¶24

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12488 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶26

______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶27

Dated: 03.02.2012 Dsr

Satti Subba Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satti Subba Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohd. Yahiya Qureshi Vs The Government of A.P.

Sindhu Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner Vs The Government of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

B. Ravindra Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pasumarthi Bhaskara Sharma Vs The National Highways Authorities of India, rep. by its

M/s. Sneha Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs The Government of A.P.

P. Immam Khan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh