Dismissed

The Zilla Praja Parishad v. D. Pathru

Telangana HC22 Dec 2015WP/41458/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging an order of the Tribunal regarding minimum wages owed to part-time school workers. The Court held that since the impugned order was passed in light of previous orders that were not revived or altered, the writ petition is liable for dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

The Zilla Praja Parishad Vs D. Pathru — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.41458 OF 2015

¶3

O R D E R: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah )

¶4

This writ petition is filed assailing the order, dated 17-08-2015, in O.A.No.4278 of 2015, whereunder the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. in the light of the directions contained in O.A.No.11076 of 2002, dated 11-12-2002 and in W.P.No.1045 of 2007, dated 13-11-2009. It is the case of petitioner that the proceedings No.C/268/2014 dated 11-12-2014 issued by the District Collector is applicable for only NMR/causal workers, who are full-time workers and the respondents 1 and 2 are not full-time workers. As per G.O.No.370 Finance (PC-III), dated 30-12-2010 the part-time workers are being paid Rs.1,623/- per month and the part time workers should put in atleast four hours of work per working day to get said wages. Since the respondents 1 and 2 are part time workers and they are being paid as per the G.O. and they are not entitled as per the proceedings of the District Collector.

¶5

It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that they are part-time workers in Upper Primary Schools in Adilabad District since 1983 and 1987 respectively and they are not being paid minimum wages right from the date of their initial appointment. As such, they filed the present O.A.

¶6

The Tribunal has considered the matter in right perspective and disposed of the O.A. in the light of the directions contained in O.A.No.11076 of 2002, dated 11-12-2002 and in W.P.No.1045 of 2007, dated 13-11-2009 and directed the respondents therein to pay minimum wages to the applicants. However, the orders relied on by the Tribunal in O.A.No.11076 of 2002 and W.P.No.1045 of 2007 are

¶7

not revived or altered or impugned. Therefore, it appears that the said orders become final.

¶8

In that view of the matter, the impugned order does warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitutions of India and the writ petition is liable for dismissal.

¶9

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶10

________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J

¶11

_______________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO,J 22-12-2015 Nvl

The Zilla Praja Parishad v. D. Pathru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Zilla Praja Parishad v. D. Pathru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Chamundeswari Builders Ameerpet Hyd Vs Secty Mins of Food and Cf and Another

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Vs Sri Chitada Malleswara Rao

P.Sivannarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

The District Audit Officer, Vs T. Venkat Ramamma

The Sarpanch, Yerraguntapadu, Vs Mohd. Yakoob

M. Satyanarayana, Vs The Engineer-in-Chief