Dismissed

Smt. M. Ramani, v. The Superintendent of Post Offices,Anakapalli Division

Telangana HC10 Mar 2014WP/24761/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismisses three writ petitions filed under Article 226 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's rejection of compassionate appointment applications, holding that directions cannot be issued due to the existence of an official memorandum discontinuing the waiting list.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed without costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Smt. M. Ramani, Vs The Superintendent of… — 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.24758, 24757 and 24761 OF 2004

¶4

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

¶5

Since the issue involved in these three Writ Petitions is one and the same, they heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

¶6

2. These Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed to call for the records relating to the orders, dated 13.07.2004, in Original Application Nos.1309 and 1535 of 2002 and Original Application No.58 of 2004, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners herein on compassionate grounds in the Postal Assistant/Group C Cadre with all consequential benefits.

¶7

3. Petitioners/applicants herein filed the aforementioned Original Applications to give appointment to them on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Applications.

¶8

4. It is not in dispute before this Court, that earlier when compassionate appoint was made, the official memorandum clearly stipulates that subject to availability of 5% of the posts in a year, compassionate appointments can be made. In the said official memorandum, it is stated that the department has to maintain waiting list. But, subsequently the department had issued another official memorandum with regard to discontinuation of waiting list for

¶9

appointment of candidates on compassionate grounds. Though that official memorandum with regard to discontinuation of waiting list is under challenge before the Tribunal, in earlier round of litigation, the same has not been set aside. Therefore, when there is no waiting list for consideration to any post suitable to the petitioners on compassionate grounds, a direction cannot be given. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with orders of the Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.

¶10

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________ (K.C.BHANU,J)

¶12

_____ (ANIS,J)

¶13

MARCH 10, 2014 YVL

¶14

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

¶15

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

WRIT PETITION Nos.24758, 24757 and 24761 OF 2004

¶17

10.03.2014

¶18

YVL

Smt. M. Ramani, v. The Superintendent of Post Offices,Anakapalli Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Ramani, v. The Superintendent of Post Offices,Anakapalli Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner and Director of School Education, Vs S. Durga Devi

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs P.V. Rami Reddy

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs a. Venkata Rao

The Government of a.P., Vs K Venkateswarlu

C. Narsimlu Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

S.Venkanna Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices