Disposed

U. Sreedhar babu v. Ap Genco

Telangana HC17 Jun 2014WP/15131/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of batch writ petitions regarding seniority grievances. It directed the Corporation to consider the petitioners' representations after notice to affected employees within eight weeks, applying the ratio of a prior W.P. 2852 of 2009 date 28.04.2014.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Corporation to consider representations and pass orders after notice to affected employees within eight weeks.

U. Sreedhar babu Vs Ap Genco — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.15131, 15132, 15133, 16159, 16426 AND 16427 OF 2014

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation.

¶5

2. The issue lies in a narrow compass in the batch of writ petitions. A perusal of the record reveals that all the petitioners are similarly placed having the same grievance against the same set of respondents. Accordingly, this court proposes to dispose of all the writ petitions through a common order at the very admission stage.

¶6

3. Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that two of the petitioners are Sub-Engineers, and rest of them are Additional Assistant Engineers (Electrical), working in the respondent Corporation at various places. Despite the cadre difference, all the petitioners, however, ventilated a common grievance as to what is said to be the discriminatory attitude of the respondent Corporation in applying the seniority vis-à-vis their initial appointment as Sub Engineers.

¶7

4. Sri S.R. Sanku, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the issue has been squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, dated 28.04.2014 in W.P.No.2852 of 2009. Making elaborate submissions on the aspect of the applicability of the said decision, the learned counsel has stated that for all practical purposes, all the petitioners are similarly situated as those in the

¶8

writ petition in W.P.No.2852 of 2009.

¶9

5. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to issue a suitable direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners on various dates and pass appropriate orders thereon, duly taking into account the ratio laid down by this Court in the judgment, dated 28.04.2014 in W.P.No.2852 of 2009.

¶10

6. The learned Standing Counsel, on his part, has expressed his reservations as to the applicability of the ratio laid down in W.P.No.2852 of 2009. In elaboration of the submission, the learned Standing Counsel has further stated that the respondent Corporation is more than willing to consider the representations of the petitioners objectively. However, the issue on application of the ratio of the judgment, dated 28.04.2014 in W.P.No.2852 of 2009, contends the learned Standing Counsel, may be left open for the authorities to consider.

¶11

7. Appreciating the rival submissions, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, intends to dispose of the batch of writ petitions, with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners said to have been submitted on different dates and pass appropriate orders thereon objectively, after duly taking into account the ratio laid down by this Court in its judgment, dated 28.04.2014 in W.P.No.2852 of 2009, if it applies, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible.

¶12

8. At this juncture, the learned Standing counsel has pointed out that if the case of the petitioners is to be considered, it is imperative on the part of the respondent Corporation to put on

¶13

notice the other employees, who would be otherwise affected. It goes without saying that before taking any decision, it is entirely left open for the respondent Corporation to put on notice those employees, who, in its opinion, would be affected, if it were to take a decision on the representations submitted by the petitioners.

¶14

9. Since it has been stated that the petitioners have been struggling for many years despite their representations, the respondent Corporation is directed to complete the entire exercise of determining the issue raised by the petitioners in the representations within a period of eight (08) weeks.

¶15

With the above observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶17

_______________________________ JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶18

Date:17.06.2014 INL

U. Sreedhar babu v. Ap Genco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U. Sreedhar babu v. Ap Genco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolluri Narayana, Vs Prasanna Simha

Shaik Irfan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the

Murla Dhana Raju, Vs The Chief Executive Officer

Boppana Satyanarayana, S/o late Sri Venkateswara Rao Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

K. Srinivasa Rao Vs Ap Genco, Vidhyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

M. Ravi Kumar Vs Ap Genco