Dismissed

M.Ramesh v. The Chairman Nalgonda District Co-Operative Central

Telangana HC1 Oct 2015WP/24804/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition for compassionate appointment, later filing separate petition for promotion. Court held that since compassionate appointment had already been made, the prayer in the initial petition was satisfied and the petition was dismissed without affecting future promotion applications.

What did the court decide?

Court closed the writ petition without any order after appointing the petitioner to the suitable post by other proceedings.

M.Ramesh Vs The Chairman Nalgonda District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24804 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition was filed assailing the action of the Nalgonda District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nalgonda, in not appointing the petitioner to a suitable post on compassionate grounds. A consequential direction was sought to the bank to do so. Reliance in this regard was placed on G.O.Ms.No.661 dated 23.10.2008 and the judgment dated 12.08.2008 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4208 of 2003 and batch.

¶5

By order dated 13.11.2008, this Court directed the bank to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to a suitable post in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661 dated 23.10.2008 and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 12.08.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.4208 of 2003 and batch. Pursuant to the above interim order, the petitioner was appointed as a Staff Assistant in the service of the bank by proceedings dated 24.08.2009. Taking note of this aspect, this Court made the interim order absolute on 28.04.2010 and dismissed the vacate stay petition filed by the bank.

¶6

W.P.M.P.No.35447 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the bank to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager as he was the senior most in the feeder category.

¶7

Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner’s case for promotion is not being considered only on the ground of pendency of this writ petition.

¶8

Sri Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank, stated that as the petitioner had been given compassionate appointment pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the prayer in this writ petition has worked itself out.

¶9

This Court finds merit in the said submission.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly closed. It shall be open to the petitioner to apply to the competent authority for promotion and thereupon his candidature shall

¶11

be considered in accordance with rules as and when a vacancy arises and is proposed to be filled up.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶13

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶14

1^st October, 2015

¶15

IBL

M.Ramesh v. The Chairman Nalgonda District Co-Operative Central

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ramesh v. The Chairman Nalgonda District Co-Operative Central

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

K.Dharma Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

L. Satyanarayana Vs The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise

M/s. S. Lalaiah and Company Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Ramana Rao, Vs The General Manager

M/s. Siva Stone Crusher Vs Deputy Director of Mines and Geology

B.Veera Venkata Vijaya Satish Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise