In a closed contempt proceeding, the court held that the petitioner's claim for regularisation of service on par with juniors could not be decided adjourning the matter by directing a fresh writ petition should the petitioner remain dissatisfied.
Contempt proceedings closed; petitioner advised to file fresh writ petition if grievance persists.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR
C.C.No.1819 of 2013
O R D E R:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the respondents have issued orders regularising service of the petitioner with continuity of service, but the regularisation of services have not been done on par with his juniors. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s services may be regularised on par with his juniors without monetary benefits. Now, the issue raised by Sri P.Venkateswer Rao cannot be decided in this contempt proceeding and if at all the petitioner is not given regularisation on par with his juniors, he has to file a fresh writ petition.
Subject to the above observations, the contempt proceedings are closed.
____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J
Dt. 13th December, 2013.
PNV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for regularisation of services on par with juniors can be decided in contempt proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
