Allowed

Murla Dhana Raju, v. The Chief Executive Officer

Telangana HC16 Jun 2014WP/27954/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this oral order, the High Court disposed of a writ petition involving a Community Surveyor who resigned to contest elections. The Court directed the competent authority to reconsider a reinstatement request, noting the lower project head lacked power to accept the resignation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for reinstatement within eight weeks.

Murla Dhana Raju, Vs The Chief Executive Officer — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27954 of 2013

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record.

¶5

Since the issue involved in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶6

Shorn of extraneous particulars, the issue in brief is that the petitioner was working as Community Surveyor in the second respondent project. At one point of time, with a view to participating in the local body elections ( Gram Panchayat), the petitioner tendered his resignation on 15.07.2013. Though particular date has not been mentioned, it is evident from the record that the petitioner’s resignation was accepted by the second respondent in the same month. Later having contested and lost the elections, immediately thereafter, on 05.08.2013, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent to reinstate him into service ignoring or rescinding his earlier recognition. It is further evident from the record that the second respondent forwarded it to the first respondent, the competent authority, to have a decision on that aspect.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the said representation was forwarded by the second respondent in the month of August, 2013, so far the first respondent has not taken any decision concerning the reinstatement of the petitioner. He has also contended that the respondent No.1 alone is the competent authority, who could take a decision concerning the resignation of the petitioner; ipso facto, the acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation by the second respondent is non-est. Accordingly, the learned counsel urged this Court to give a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, as has been forwarded by the second respondent, especially taking into consideration the fact that the earlier acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the second respondent is without any legal consequence.

¶8

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on her part, submits that the first respondent is more than willing to consider the representation of the petitioner, which was forwarded by the second respondent, in accordance with law.

¶9

Accordingly, without adverting to the merits of the matter, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dt. 05.08.2013, as has been forwarded by the second respondent in the same month, by duly taking into account that the acceptance of initial resignation of the petitioner was by the second respondent, who is not competent to accept the resignation of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶10

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_______________________ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J

¶12

Date: 16.06.2014 eha

Murla Dhana Raju, v. The Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murla Dhana Raju, v. The Chief Executive Officer

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

D. Raja Reddy, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K. Yakoob, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

K. Kameshwar Rao Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Kolluri Narayana, Vs Prasanna Simha

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

B.Chandrasekhar, Vs The Government of a,P., Rep by its Principal Secretary