Disposed

Alikhya Labour Contract Welfare Society v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Jul 2015WP/21014/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes of a writ petition challenging the municipality's refusal to entrust sanitation work. Grants liberty to petitioners to approach the Commissioner with representations regarding government orders and prior court directions on work allocation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to represent grievances before the Commissioner and a response must be passed within two weeks.

Alikhya Labour Contract Welfare Society Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.21014 of 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

Alikhya Labour Contract Welfare Society, (Reg.No.4/2012) Office at D.No.38/169-7, Arundhathi Nagar, Chinnachowk, Kadapa City, Y.S.R. District, Rep. by its President B. Penchalamma & 4 others

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G2) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & another

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.21014 of 2015

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

With the consent of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for the 1^st respondent and Sri S.D. Goud, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶16

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2^nd respondent Municipality in refusing to entrust the sanitation work in favour of the petitioners while entrusting the same in favour of other Societies like the petitioners. The petitioners allege violation of the Government policy on earmarking of particular percentage of work to Self Help Groups, Common Interest Groups, Societies, Unions, etc. It is also contended that in batch of writ petitions, this Court also directed first to notify the unions earmarked for such groups, but the same is not followed.

¶17

3. Apparently the work is already entrusted and the grievance of the petitioners is that they are not given work. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is still some more work to be assigned.

¶18

4. If that is so, liberty is granted to the petitioners to represent before the Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District (2^nd respondent) ventilating their grievance and also bringing to the notice of the 2^nd respondent Corporation the various orders of the Government on allocation of work to Self Help Groups, etc., and also the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.38081 of 2012 and batch, dated 26.02.2013. As and when such a representation is made, the 2^nd respondent Corporation shall consider and pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶19

5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶21

Date: 9^th July, 2015

¶22

Note: Issue C.C. in two (2) days.

¶23

(B/o.) KL

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.21014 of 2015

¶26

Date: 9^th July, 2015

¶27

Alikhya Labour Contract Welfare Society v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alikhya Labour Contract Welfare Society v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Smt. Dr. Talipineni Katyayani Swapna, Vs The State of Telangana

Aravapalli Raghavendra Kalyan Vs Guntur Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner

Jitendera Kaur Ramgadia, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Nenavath Munya Naik S/o. Bhadya Naik, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

K. Rafeeq, Vs The Municipal Council, Hindupur

Ambati Sujatha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh