Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K.Reddaiah

Telangana HC6 Jun 2014WP/15350/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the Government challenging the Tribunal's order in a service dispute. The Court found that the legal ground relied upon for the Tribunal's decision was factually incorrect as a show cause notice was issued in the present case, distinguishing it from a similar earlier batch of applications. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the Original Application afresh.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs K.Reddaiah — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.15350 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 20.2.2014, in O.A.No.8183 of 2013 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Respondent No.1 herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare the proceedings, dated 28.10.2013, issued by petitioner No.3/respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, declare that he is entitled for all consequential benefits.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application on the ground that the matter is squarely covered by the order, dated 25.4.2013, in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the Government.

¶8

4. According to the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners, the matter is not covered by the order, dated 25.4.2013, in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, who filed caveat, also admitted that the matter is not covered by the said order.

¶9

5. The order, dated 25.4.2013, in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch was allowed on the ground that show cause notice was not issued to the applicants therein before terminating them from service, but in the present case, it is stated by the learned Government Pleader that the show cause notice has been issued to the applicant before terminating

¶10

him from service. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. The issue involved in the Original Application has to be resolved basing on its own merits.

¶11

6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a request to dispose of the Original Application afresh with a liberty to the petitioners herein to raise the contention before the Tribunal that the show cause notice has been served upon respondent No.1/applicant before terminating him from service. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶13

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 06.6.2014 AMD

¶14

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

¶15

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.15350 OF 2014

¶17

DATE: 06.6.2014

¶18

AMD

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K.Reddaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K.Reddaiah

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

M. Ramachandra Rao, Vs Union of India rep by its The Chairman and Managing Director

K. Sivaramakrishna Sastry, S/o Late Mallikarjuna Vs The Union of India rep. by the Secretary

N. Prem Kumar, Vs Director General, Films Division

T. Satya Kumar, Vs The District Collector and Chairman

B.Sujatha, Vs The Commissioner and Director of School Education

V.Venkateswara Rao, Vs Y.Surya Prakasa Rao