Dismissed

B. Sreenivasulu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Jun 2014WP/11077/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking enforcement of a 2013 common order regarding promotion and notional seniority. The bench held that the High Court is not an executing court and the remedy for non-implementation lies elsewhere, making the writ petition devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs; miscellaneous petitions were closed.

B. Sreenivasulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.11077 of 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in not implementing the common order of this Court, dated 07.10.2013, in W.P.Nos.10262 and 10263 of 2010 respectively, as arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents to implement the same forthwith by fixing the time and consequently, direct the respondents to consider promotion avenues in favour of the petitioner by allowing notional seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant with effect from 31.05.2008 with all consequential benefits and promote the petitioner as Superintendent as per the Rules and eligibility.

¶6

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the common order of this Court, dated 07.10.2013, in W.P.Nos.10262 and 10263 of 2010 respectively has not been complied with, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶7

3. On the other hand, Sri T.Bheemanna, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶8

4. This Court is not an Executing Court to implement the common order of this Court, dated 07.10.2013, in W.P.Nos.10262 and 10263 of 2010 respectively. If the order of this Court has not been implemented, the remedy of the petitioner is otherwise. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶10

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶11

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS JUNE 12, 2014

¶12

YVL

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.11077 of 2014

¶16

DATED: 12.06.2014

¶17

YVL

B. Sreenivasulu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Sreenivasulu, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board Vs The Sneha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

R. Sathish Chandra Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

M.K. Prasad, Ifs., S/o Late Balakotaiah Vs The Union of India, rep by its Secretary

M. Rama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yamavarapu China Bhagya Rao, Vs The General Manager

J. Prabhakar S/o Rajasekhar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, repby PRincipal