This judgment disposed of two writ petitions challenging an order dispensing with petitioners' services due to lack of government empanelment. The court dismissed the petitions on admitted facts that no valid work order existed as of the filing date.
Writ petitions dismissed; miscellaneous petitions if any closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 37758 and 38284 of 2014
DATED 3rd July, 2015
BETWEEN
S.Madhavi and ors.
…Petitioners in WP.No. 37758 of 2014
L.Madhavi and ors. …Petitioners in WP.No. 38284 of 2014 And
The A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Vice Chairman cum Managing Director, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents in both WPs. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 37758 and 38284 of 2014
ORDER:
As the issue that arise for consideration in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
These two Writ Petitions are filed challenging the communication dated 29.11.2014 addressed by the Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the first respondent-
Corporation to the Chief Project Officer of the first respondentCorporation at Mangampet village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Y.S.R. District to engage the services of the third respondent who is empanelled with the Government of Andhra Pradesh since the petitioners are not empanelled with the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
It is an admitted case of both the parties that initially a work order was issued for engaging the services of the petitioners for a period of one year by communication dated 21.12.2012 and thereafter work order was not issued and they were being continued from time to time. Ultimately by virtue of the impugned communication, their services were dispensed with on the ground that they were not empanelled with the Government and the services of the third respondent were decided to be taken as it is empanelled with the Government. The learned Counsel for the petitioners is unable to show any work order issued in favour of the petitioners as on the date of filing the Writ Petition.
In the circumstances stated herein above, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petitions shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Dated 3rd July, 2015. Msnrx
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a work order issued in favour of petitioners was legally enforceable under the facts of the case.
S. Madhavi
L. Madhavi
The A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
