Partly allowed

Union of India, v. B. Srisailam

Telangana HC18 Feb 2014WP/4455/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing multiple writ petitions challenging an Arbitration/Quasi-judicial Authority's disposal of appeals on termination of services. The court set aside a specific clause granting liberty to the authority to approach the Tribunal, holding it unnecessary, while disposing of the writs without substantive legal determination.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the clause granting liberty to approach the Tribunal; no order as to costs; petitions disposed.

Union of India, Vs B. Srisailam — 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 Nos.4454, 4455, 4456, 4457, 4458, 4459, 4460, 4461, 4462, 4463, 4464, 4465, 4466, 4467, 4468 and 4469 of 2014

¶4

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

¶5

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari in declaring the common judgments dated 18-09-2013 in O.A.Nos.284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 and 292 of 2011 and O.A.Nos.581, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588 and 589 of 2011, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabd (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder and whereby all the O.As. were disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the pending appeal of the applicants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and pass a reasoned order as per rules. It is further observed that if the applicants are aggrieved with such order to be passed, they are at liberty to approach the Tribunal afresh.

¶6

2. All the above O.As. are filed to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents, wherein the services of the applicants have been terminated with immediate effect, as being illegal and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate them with all consequential benefits. The said O.As. are disposed of as stated above. Aggrieved by the last sentence in the impugned common orders, these present writ petitions are filed.

¶7

3. Heard both sides.

¶8

4. There is no need for the Tribunal to give liberty particularly to approach the Tribunal in case the applicants are aggrieved by the order. Therefore, the last paragraph of the impugned common orders namely “If the applicant is aggrieved with such order to be passed, he is at liberty to approach the Tribunal afresh” is set aside. However, it does not mean that the applicants are debarred from approaching the competent authority, in accordance with law.

¶9

5. With the above observation, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶12

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶13

February 18, 2014 PN

¶14

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

¶15

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

WRIT PETITION Nos.4454, 4455, 4456, 4457, 4458, 4459, 4460, 4461, 4462, 4463, 4464, 4465, 4466, 4467, 4468 and 4469 of 2014

¶17

February 18, 2014

¶18

Union of India, v. B. Srisailam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. B. Srisailam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y Surender Vs Govt. of Ap Health Medical and Family

P.Narayana Rao Vs Union of India Agriculture Department

The General Manager Vs Smt. Kishan Bee

Unon of India, Vs R.K.Anand

Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary Vs C.Vijayalakshmi W/o Srisailam

Secry A.P.P.S.C. Hyd Vs Raju Bbavisetty Peddipalem VIZAGAND2 Ors.