Disposed

Smt.a.N.Mallika Rani, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation

Telangana HC21 Apr 2017WP/2814/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the legality of proceedings affecting the petitioner's service. Finding the respondent willing to re-consider the regularization claim, the court directed the respondents to reconsider and close the petition without further orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent Corporation to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services.

Smt.a.N.Mallika Rani, Vs The Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2814 OF 2015

¶3

Dated:21.04.2017

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. A. N. Mallika Rani, W/o. Sri D. Kasinath, Aged about 39 years,, Occ: Date Entry Operator, R/o.Flat No.504, Sri S. V.Mahalakshmi Apartments, H.No.3-3-64, 78, 79 & 80, Gokhale Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad .. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation, Limited, rep., by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, 5-1-193, 2^nd Floor, HACA Bhavan, Opp. Public Gardens, Saifabad, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.2814 OF 2015

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶14

“… to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order declaring the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2014 issued by the 2^nd respondent acting on behalf of the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and set aside the same and further direct the respondents to reconsider the issue and pass appropriate orders in relation to the regularization of the services of the petitioner as Date Entry Operator in the respondent corporation and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶15

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation submits that the respondent – Corporation is willing to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services.

¶16

Having regard to the said submission, no further orders are required to be passed in the Writ Petition.

¶17

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent – Corporation to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶20

Date:21.04.2017 KH

Smt.a.N.Mallika Rani, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.a.N.Mallika Rani, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation

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

S. Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Shabar Hussain Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal

Younus, S/o. Akber, Vs State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary

Mohd. Yousuf Vs The Govt. of Telangana

G.T.S.R.Krishna , Geesala Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kuna Sreeramamurthy Vs S.S.Rawat.