Dismissed

Mohd. Mahmood, v. The Director (Personnel)

Telangana HC1 Aug 2014WP/21650/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging an order retiring officials at age 58. It held that questions regarding the definition of 'workman' and entitlement to continued service are disputed facts requiring evidence, thus fit for the Industrial Tribunal, not this Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with leave to remedy existing under law thereafter.

Mohd. Mahmood, Vs The Director (Personnel) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION NOs.21649 AND 21650 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

These two Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 23.07.2014, in Original Application Nos.4384 and 4385 of 2014 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same including Circular Memo No.289/(R)/A1/2013/6777, dated 28.11.2013, issued by respondent No.1 herein in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶6

2. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner in W.P.No.21649 of 2014 was originally appointed as Man Mazdoor and he is stated to have been promoted as Technical Grade-II (MB) (WS) in Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (HMWS&SB). Whereas petitioner in W.P.No.21650 of 2014 was originally appointed as Man Mazdoor and he is stated to have been promoted as Special Purpose Employee (Water Supply) and he was further converted as Technical Grade-II (C/B) in HMWS&SB. While so, the Director (Personnel) of the HMWS&SB, served retirement notice, dated 28.11.2013, on the petitioners, intimating them that they would retire from service on 31.07.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years.

¶7

3. Petitioners herein/applicants in both the Writ Petitions filed the aforementioned Applications to declare the aforesaid Circular Memo, dated 28.11.2013, in so far as it relates to the petitioners herein, whose names are mentioned at Sl.Nos.82 and 85, as arbitrary and illegal and

¶8

consequently, direct the respondents to continue them in service till they attain the age of 60 years with all consequential monetary benefits.

¶9

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the Original Applications directing the petitioners to approach the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶10

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions contended that similarly situated persons like petitioners are being continued in pursuance of orders of this Court, dated 07.02.2011, in W.P.No.6258 of 2005 and Batch; that, as per Clause 13 (3) of Regulation 13 of the Service Regulations issued in HMWS&SB, the petitioners are liable to be continued upto 60 years with all consequential benefits and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

6. The questions that fall for consideration in these Writ Petitions are whether the petitioners come within the meaning for ‘Workman’ as per Clause 13 (3) of Regulation 13 of the Service Regulations issued in HMWS&SB or not; and whether the petitioners are entitled to be continued upto 60 years or not, which are the disputed questions of fact, and they are required to be decided by the competent Forum. That is the reason why the Tribunal directed the petitioners to approach the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. So also, the petitioners have to plead and prove that they come within the meaning of ‘Workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no application to the facts of the present case, because those Writ Petitions arose out of Common Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereunder the issue has been decided basing on the evidence to the effect that the applicants therein were the ‘workmen’. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed.

¶12

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

__________________ ___ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶14

______________ JUSTICE ANIS AUGUST 01, 2014 YVL

¶15

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

¶16

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶17

WRIT PETITION NOs.21649 AND 21650 OF 2014

¶18

Date: 01.08.2014

¶19

YVL

Mohd. Mahmood, v. The Director (Personnel)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mahmood, v. The Director (Personnel)

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 Chairman, Isro and Secretary, Department of Space Vs Isro Retired Employees Forum (Iref)

Smt.Kavitha Madhavareddygari Vs Sri Ravinder Reddy Mamidi Alias Anil Mani

M/s.Glk Granites Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its secretary

Smt. Hanumakonda Nirmala, Vs Union of India

Samudrala Ilaiah, Vs The Director (Personnel)

M/s Descon Associates Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.