Disposed

Lala Ramu, Hyd v. Prl Secy, H,M and Fw Dept, Hyd and 2 Others

Telangana HC16 Sept 2013PIL/391/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in PIL No. 391 of 2013 addresses a strike call by doctors in Andhra Pradesh. The Court directed that strikes are impermissible but mandates the government to negotiate with doctors in writing to redress grievances and prevent public suffering.

What did the court decide?

Doctors barred from striking; directed to make written demands for negotiations with the government to resolve grievances.

Lala Ramu, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, H,M and Fw Dept, Hyd… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

Public Interest Litigation No.391 of 2013

¶3

DATED:16.9.2013

¶4

Between: Lala Ramu

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶10

Public Interest Litigation No.391 of 2013

¶11

Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶12

In pursuance of the earlier order of this Court dated 19.8.2013, the Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (E1) Department, Hyderabad, the 1^st respondent herein, has submitted the report.

¶13

We have seen the report. It appears from the said report that negotiations have taken place between the Government and the striking doctors and the Government is keen to address their legitimate grievances.

¶14

We are of the view that the doctors cannot resort to strike call under any circumstances. However, they shall make their demands in writing in advance and the Government will sit with the Andhra Pradesh Junior Doctors Association and sort out

¶15

the problems so that there cannot be any unpleasant situation, which may drive the doctors to take the law in their own hands which will result in public sufferings.

¶16

Under the circumstances, as per the report given to this Court, action as far as possible, shall be taken in the matter without any further delay. However, in future, the doctors must not resort to strike and shall make a representation to the Government for redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.

¶17

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall also stand disposed of.

¶18

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶19

K.C. BHANU, J 16.9.2013

¶20

PNB

Lala Ramu, Hyd v. Prl Secy, H,M and Fw Dept, Hyd and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lala Ramu, Hyd v. Prl Secy, H,M and Fw Dept, Hyd and 2 Others

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

K.Padmanabhaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Forum for Rule of Law Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Biyyala Venkata Papa Rao Vs Government of A.P.

Karumanchi Prasanna Kumar Vs The Election Commissioner

B. Suresh Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Neelima Cheguri Enclave Owners Welfare Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gulam Rabbani Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Its Principal Secretary

N.Raja Reddy S/o Yadireddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Icatch Communications India Ltd., Hyd. Vs Secy., Min. of Finance, New Delhi and 3 Ors.

M/S. Icatch Communications India Ltd., Hyd. Vs Secy., Min. of Finance, New Delhi and 3 Ors.

Pothugunta Purandara Babu, Tirupathi Vs Secy, Dep of Endowments, and 3 Others

Syed Habeeb, B.J.R.Nagar, Miryalaguda, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad Vs the Secretary, Minorities Welfare Dept., and 5 Others

Pothuganti Alekhya, Nellore Dist Vs Secy, State Election Commission, Secbad and 3 Ot

Thota Venkateswara Rao, Nellore Dist. Vs Secy., State Election Commission, Sec-Bad and 3 Ors.