Allowed

Ms. B. Aruna v. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretar

Telangana HC30 Dec 2015WP/42331/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an order directing payment of their remuneration through an outsourcing agency. Relying on a prior decision holding such directions unsustainable in law, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings dated 01.08.2015 directing payment through outsourcing agency are set aside; petitioners allowed.

Ms. B. Aruna Vs The State of Telangana represented… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.42331 of 2015

¶3

DATED : 30.12.2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ms.B.Aruna D/o.B.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 44 yrs,, Accountant cum Clerk, Kasturba Ganhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV), Shaligouraram, R/o.Shaligouraram, Nalgonda District & 15 others.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 7 others.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.42331 of 2015

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioners are employed by the Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society and are continuing in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) which is now vested in Sarva Sikha Abhiyan. The pay and allowances were paid to the petitioners directly by the respondents. Petitioners are now aggrieved by the order in proceedings dated 01.08.2015 of the Secretary, Telangana State Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad directing payment of remuneration to the petitioners through outsourcing agency.

¶14

2. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsels state that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.26244 of 2015 & batch dated 17.12.2015. This Court held as under :

¶15

“Therefore, the direction issued in the impugned circular is not sustainable in law. I see no justification on the course adopted in the order impugned and the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Petitioners shall be paid their remuneration by the Management of KGBVs as long as their services are utilized. However, it is made clear that this order does not come in the way o f Sarva Siksha Abhiyan regulating the employment in KGBVs by assigning priority to the safety and welfare of the girl students pursuing their education in KGBVs.”

¶16

3. Following the said decision, the proceedings Rc.No.1315/KGBV/2015 dated 01.08.2015 is also liable to be set

¶17

aside and is accordingly set aside.

¶18

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no

¶19

order as to costs.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶21

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 30^th December, 2015 Rds

Ms. B. Aruna v. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. B. Aruna v. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.K.Basha, E-403630, Apsrtc Driver Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.

A. Saraswathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Durga Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri S. R. Pandurang, Vs State of Telangana, represented by Its Principal Secretary

Manoj Kumar (Service No.691785-B) Vs Union of India Rep by its Secretary to the Government

Krishna Manikya Varma. B, Vs The State of Telangana