Dismissed

K. Suresh v. The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd.

Telangana HC17 Sept 2016WP/14155/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his dismissal as a Junior Lineman. Observing that an interim order from 2007 continued his services as contract labour, the court held the grievance was redressed by that interim order and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file appropriate legal remedy if services are discontinued in the future.

K. Suresh Vs The A.P. Southern Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.14155 OF 2007

¶3

DATED:17-09-2016

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mr. K. Suresh … Petitioner And

¶6

The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Tirupathi, Chittoor District and others … Respondents

¶7

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. N.M. Krishnaiah

¶8

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr. P.R. Balarami Reddy

¶9

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 CVNR, J

WP 14155/2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

¶14

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dispensing with the services of the petitioner as Junior Lineman/Shift Operator in 33/11 KV SubStation, Manasasarovaram, Guntur, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as Junior Lineman/Shift Operator in 33/11 K.V. Sub-Station, Manasasarovaram, Guntur, by protecting continuance of source of livelihood.”

¶15

At the hearing, Mr. N.M. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on 05.7.2007 this Court has granted an interim direction to continue the petitioner as contract labour and that as of now he has no instructions as to whether the petitioner is being continued or not.

¶16

Having regard to the nature of the relief claimed in this writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed with the grant of the interim direction, if he is continued in service as on today, and if his services are discontinued in future he shall be entitled to avail appropriate legal remedy under law.

¶17

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶18

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.17764 of

¶19

2007 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

bnr

¶22

17-09-2016

K. Suresh v. The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Suresh v. The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd.

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 Chinthala Lakhmi Narayana Murthy, Vs Sri Velamala Vasudeva Rao (Died)

Polavarapu Ganga Babu, Vs Rayapureddy Appalanaidu

Polavarapu Ganga Babu Vs Rayapureddy Appalanaidu

Sri P. Venkatasubbaiah, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Shanigarapu Madhunamma, Vs The District Collector

T. Vijaya Bhaskar S/o Obeelesu Vs A.P. Southurn Power Distribution Company of