Dismissed

C. Srinivasulu, S/o. C. Seshanna, v. The Vice Chairman / Managing Director, Scheduled Caste

Telangana HC8 Apr 2013WP/8424/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a driver absorbed into the newly formed Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, challenged the non-consideration of his representations seeking repatriation to his original employer. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that personnel from the dissolved engineering wing had no merit in seeking retention in the old corporation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs.

C. Srinivasulu, S/o. C. Seshanna, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.8424 OF 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition has been instituted seeking a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the action of the first respondent namely ViceChairman/Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, in not considering the petitioner’s representations dated 08.11.2012 and 11.12.2012 seeking repatriation back to the said society as illegal. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed in the year 1987 as an attender on temporary basis on consolidated pay in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, and was posted to its Kadapa District unit. Since he knew driving of motor vehicles, his services were utilized as a driver also. Since his services were not regularized, inspite of putting in number of years of service, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21950 of 1994 in this Court, which writ petition was disposed of on 29.12.1995 by this Court. According to the petitioner, by virtue of the orders passed in the above said writ petition, the Executive Director, District Scheduled Castes Cooperative Society Limited, Kadapa District, he was appointed as a driver in the vacancy that has arisen due to the promotion of the existing incumbent Sri V. Siva Prakasam as a typist. By another order passed in August 2002, his services were also regularized as a driver with effect from 12.06.1997. When the Engineering Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited has been constituted into Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation, a separate corporation, the petitioner was surrendered to the said corporation on

¶4

16.10.2009 along with two other individuals. It is against these proceedings dated 16.10.2009 the petitioner submitted the representations suggesting that he should be retained in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation and shall not be continued in the Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation. Heard Sri K. Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri M. Sudhir, learned counsel for the first and second respondents and Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.

¶5

Along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, copy of the proceedings Rc.No.8/Estt/05 dated 31.03.2007 passed by the Deputy Executive Engineer (Social Welfare), District SCSCS Limited was also enclosed. These proceedings in-turn refer to the proceedings Rc.No.A1/1666/2006 dated 30.03.2007 of the District Collector/Chairman, District SCSCS limited at Kadapa, whereby the writ petitioner has been ordered and deputed to work in the office of the Executive Director of the Corporation at Kadapa. He was deputed to work in the office of the Executive Director along with the vehicle which he was driving, under the control of the Deputy Executive engineer (Social Welfare). It is, therefore, contended by Sri M. Sudhir that the petitioner was working in the Engineering Wing of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Finance Corporation, to begin with, but however, pursuant to the orders passed by the District Collector who is the Chairman of the district unit, the petitioner was deputed to work with the office of the Executive Director of the said district unit. Now that there is a separate corporation created called Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Development Corporation, the services of the petitioner are to be

¶6

retained in those, the newly created corporation and however the petitioner cannot seek continuance in service either under the Andhra Pradesh State Schedule Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation or in its district unit at Kadapa.

¶7

It is the petitioner who was in fact found in the year 1997 as working under the control of the Deputy Executive Engineer (Social Welfare). It is reasonable to infer that the writ petitioner was working in the engineering wing of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation. The entire engineering wing of the said finance Corporation has been constituted into a separate Corporation by this, which came to be christened as Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Development Infrastructure Corporation. Therefore, all such personnel who were working in the engineering wing of the monolithic Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development Corporation have been made over to funding with the newly formed Andhra Pradesh State Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation. In that process, the writ petitioner also came to be absorbed in the newly formed Corporation. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea of the writ petitioner that he should be retained in service either in the Andhra Pradesh State Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation or its district unit at Kadapa. I, do not find any justifiable reason for grant of relief as prayed for and hence this writ petition is dismissed, but however without costs. Miscellaneous applications if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶8

________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶9

8^th April, 2013 sp

C. Srinivasulu, S/o. C. Seshanna, v. The Vice Chairman / Managing Director, Scheduled Caste

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Srinivasulu, S/o. C. Seshanna, v. The Vice Chairman / Managing Director, Scheduled Caste

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

P. Narasimha S/o Yekaiah Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Bommaigari Saraswathi W/o Kavali Mallesh Vs The District Collector, Anantapur

Chindada Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Faize, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Sharfuddin, S/o. Md. Azeemuddin, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

M. Sambasiva Rao Vs Commissioner,Consumer Affairs, Food ANDs Civil Supplies