Dismissed

M.V. Sudhir Kumar S/o M. Goverdhan Rao v. Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of

Telangana HC13 Jun 2014WP/20454/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order where the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of an Original Application for delayed filing. The court found no grounds to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to approach the respondent for redressal of grievances regarding pay scales.

M.V. Sudhir Kumar S/o M. Goverdhan Rao Vs… — 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.20454 OF 2006

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the order, dated 6.1.2006, in M.A.No.5 of 2006 in O.A.No.16 of 2005 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and proceedings bearing No.32016/15/2004-A(NG), dated 8.10.2004, issued by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

2. Petitioner/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare the proceedings, dated 8.10.2004, issued by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant him the upgraded scale of Assistant Director, Grade-II in accordance with proceedings A-12018/2/1998A(NG), dated 28.11.2003, without reference to proceedings, dated 8.10.2004, issued by respondent No.3.

¶7

3. The Original Application was dismissed for default on 1.4.2005 by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.A.No.430 of 2005 to condone the delay in filing the application to restore the above Original Application and the same was also dismissed for default on 6.10.2005. Again, M.A.No.5 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner to set aside the order, dated 6.10.2005, in M.A.No.430 of 2005, and the same was dismissed on merits on 6.1.2006 vide impugned order holding that no second application can be filed to set aside the restoration order. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the applicant.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant contended that due to unavoidable circumstances, the counsel was absent before the Tribunal on both the occasions and one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner to ventilate his grievances and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶9

5. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to implementation of pay scales. According to him, he is entitled to the pay scale of upgraded, merged and re-designated post of Assistant Director Grade.II of Rs.6,500-200-10,500 in place of Rs.5,500-175-9000 in terms of Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Small Industry Development Organisation Group “B” Posts Recruitment Rules, 2004. At this point of time, we do not find any reason to set aside the Miscellaneous Application, which was filed to condone the delay in restoring the Original Application. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶10

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of the fact that the Original Application was not disposed of on merits, this order will not preclude the petitioner from approaching respondent No.3 and filing necessary application seeking redressal of his grievance and thereafter, the same shall have to be considered in accordance with the rules governing the service conditions of the applicant. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶13

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶14

Date: 13.6.2014 AMD

¶15

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

¶16

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.20454 OF 2006

¶18

DATE: 13.6.2014

¶19

AMD

M.V. Sudhir Kumar S/o M. Goverdhan Rao v. Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V. Sudhir Kumar S/o M. Goverdhan Rao v. Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of

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

M. Rama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yamavarapu China Bhagya Rao, Vs The General Manager

B. Sreenivasulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Nadhamuni, S/o.Late P.Chengaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri P.V.S. Reddy Vs The Government of A.P.

The Chief Executive Officer, Vs D.Narayana Rao, Record Assistant