Dismissed

K.Prabhakar Rao, v. Ap Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Telangana HC23 Dec 2013WP/4539/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court described the petitioners' challenge to the respondents' inaction regarding contract service seniority under a quashed order. Citing the Division Bench decision and its confirmation by the Apex Court, the Court held that no further consideration was merited and dismissed the writ petition, directing no consequential orders for three weeks.

What did the court decide?

No consequential orders to be passed by the respondents for a period of three weeks in respect of the petitioners.

K.Prabhakar Rao, Vs Ap Central Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 4539 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in not recounting the Contract Service of the petitioners for the purpose of seniority in terms of TOO 231 dated 23.12.2008 as arbitrary and violative of Articles 4, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶5

This Court passed interim order in W.P.MP.No. 5790 of 2012 basing upon TOO 231 dated 23.12.2008, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners. Subsequently, a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No. 29418 of 2010 have been allowed by Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy by the order dated 8.10.2011 directing the respondents to consider the cases of similarly situated employees basing upon the TOO 231 dated 23.12.2008. The said judgment was challenged in W.A.No. 1104 of 2013 and batch. A Division Bench of this Court quashed TOO 231 dated 23.12.2008 and further held that the Assistant Engineers appointed on contract basis are not entitled to reckon their service as such, for the purpose of seniority and that they are entitled to compute their service for the purpose of seniority only from the date of their regularization in that post, but not otherwise. The order of the

¶6

Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court. It is not in dispute that the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. However, directed the petitioners therein to file review petition before the Division Bench. Accordingly, review petitions have been filed and the Division Bench ordered status quo.

¶7

Sri Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that status quo order is limited to the extent of petitioners, who filed review petitions and limited extent of considering the promotions effected during the pendency of the proceedings. It is not in dispute that TOO No. 231 dated 23.12.2008 is quashed by the Division of this Court and the same has been confirmed by the Apex Court. Since the said TOO No. 231 dated 23.12.2008 is quashed the claim of the petitioners based on the said TOO No. 231 dated 23.12.2008 is rejected. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶8

The leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to file an appeal challenging the order of this Court.

¶9

In the above circumstances, respondents are directed not to pass any consequential orders for a period of three weeks in respect of the petitioners. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶10

SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR DATE: 23.12.2013 KA

¶11

Note: Office is directed to issue a copy of the order within three days.

K.Prabhakar Rao, v. Ap Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Prabhakar Rao, v. Ap Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Pingili Posavva

Mubarak Awad Al-Kasari Vs Gulam Mohammed Moizuddin

G.Padmavathamma and Another Vs Dorasanipalle Mosa

Polam Reddy Venugopala Reddy Vs Smt. Vuggumudi Kalpana

B.V.S.R. Murthy, Vs Sri. A.K. Khan, IPS

Sardar Mahender Singh Bagga Vs Mohammed Ahmed (died)