Allowed

Mohd Sadiq, D/o Mohd Azam, v. The State of Telangana.

Telangana HC29 Jan 2016WP/2266/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition allowed the restoration of an original application dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal due to the petitioner's advocate's negligence. The court set aside the Tribunal's order on the condition that the legal counsel pays a sum of Rs. 500 to the Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.07.2015 of the Tribunal is set aside and O.A. No. 1383 of 2008 is restored to file subject to the condition that the learned counsel pays Rs. 500 to the Telangana State Leg

Mohd Sadiq, D/o Mohd Azam, Vs The State of Telangana. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH &

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶3

W.P.No. 2266 of 2016

¶4

DATE: 29.01.2016

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mohd Sadiq .. Petitioner And The State of Telangana and three others .. Respondents

¶7

O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

¶8

The petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.No. 1383 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), asserts that on 10.12.1984, he was initially appointed as Supervisor in Children Home for Boys, Hyderabad, and subsequently, on 01.05.1994, he was appointed as Typist by transfer in Special Home for Boys, Hyderabad, and ever since, he has been working as such and his probation in the category of Typist was declared on 01.05.1994. While so, it is stated that the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings dated 07.02.2008 reverting the petitioner from the post of Typist to the post of Supervisor on the ground that the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules were amended on 30.10.1998 and the 3^rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 08.02.2008, relieved the petitioner from his duties. Being aggrieved by the proceedings dated 07.02.2008 and 08.02.2008, when the applicant filed O.A.No. 1383 of 2008, the Tribunal, by order dated 19.02.2008, while admitting the O.A. suspended both the proceedings. The respondents

¶9

herein filed V.M.A.No. 308 of 2008 seeking vacation of the interim suspension. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the Tribunal, by order dated 11.03.2011, while dismissing the O.A. for default allowed V.M.A.No. 308 of 2008 vacating the interim orders. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that when the petitioner filed M.A.No. 753 of 2011 in O.A.No. 1383 of 2008 seeking restoration of the O.A., the Tribunal, by order dated 20.07.2015, dismissed the application, in pursuance of which, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings dated 23.12.2015 reverting the petitioner to the post of Supervisor. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 20.07.2015 of the Tribunal and also the consequential proceedings of the 2^nd respondent.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact, on the date of dismissal of the application for restoration of the O.A., the Advocate, who appeared before the Tribunal, was present in the Court Hall, but just before the case reached, he was called in another Court, therefore he was not able to make any representation when the O.A. was taken up for hearing, as such, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

Merely because of the latches on the part of the Advocate before the Tribunal in failing to make

¶13

representation when the matter was called, the party should not be made to suffer. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly keeping in view the interest of the party in prosecuting the matter, we are inclined to make the following order:

¶14

“The impugned order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 1383 of 2008 is set aside, and consequently, O.A. is restored to file, however the same shall be subject to the condition that the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is on record, before the Tribunal, pays an amount of Rs.500/(Rupees Five Hundred Only) to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within a period of ten days from today.”

¶15

Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel to the allowing of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶18

29.01.2016

¶19

______________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J

¶20

Note: Furnish copy in three days b/o bcj

Mohd Sadiq, D/o Mohd Azam, v. The State of Telangana.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sadiq, D/o Mohd Azam, v. The State of Telangana.

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

The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Suragani Poornachandra Rao

M. Srinivasa Rao Vs Smt M. Jayasree

S.Sandhya Rani Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District. Vs Kampili Channappa

Tompala Trinadham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Mahesh Vs Govt. of A.P