Dismissed

M. Balagangadhar Tilak v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC17 Nov 2016WP/13048/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismisses two writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's vacation of interim orders regarding a pending seniority list dispute. The Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the main applications within two months and vacates its own pending interim suspension.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed confirming Tribunal order; interim suspension ordered for nearly three years vacated; Tribunal directed to dispose main applications within two months.

M. Balagangadhar Tilak Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.11343 & 13048 OF 2014

¶2

COMMON ORDER : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Ramasubramanian)

¶3

Both these writ petitions arise out of an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, vacating an interim order granted in two applications.

¶4

Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-II (Andhra Pradesh) for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶5

Challenging the provisional seniority list in the cadre of District Public Relations Officers, the writ petitioners filed two applications in O.A.Nos.1313 and 1992 of 2014 on the file of the Tribunal. The Tribunal originally granted an interim order to maintain status quo on 28.02.2014. Upon an application for vacating the interim order, filed by respondent No.3 in these writ petitions, the Tribunal vacated the previous interim orders.

¶6

Aggrieved by the vacation of the interim orders, the original applications before the Tribunal have come up with the present writ petitions. In these writ petitions, there has been an interim suspension for the past 2½ years.

¶7

¶8

The result is that the original applications are still pending and the seniority list could not be finalised for the past nearly three years.

¶9

In view of the above stalemate, both these writ petitions are dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal. As a consequence, the interim order granted by this Court is vacated. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the main applications within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any action taken pursuant to the seniority list impugned before the Tribunal, will be subject to the final outcome of the applications. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

____
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

G. SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶11

Date: 17.11.2016. TJMR

M. Balagangadhar Tilak v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Balagangadhar Tilak v. The Commissioner

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

Sri Suthari Ravindar, Vs Punjab National Bank

Additional Director General of Police Home Guards, Vs Kalangi Chalamaiah

K.V. Ramana, Vs The Union of India

Rathod Dhanraj Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. P. Nagaraja Kumari

Mohammed Shaheer Zaman, Vs The Executive Council