Disposed

M.Gangaram v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC2 Aug 2017WP/6688/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding inaction on regularisation claims. It noted that consideration had been accorded via separate proceedings, making the validity of those proceedings outside the petition's scope. The petition was dismissed as the matter required separate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; interim relief petition dismissed as infructuous.

M.Gangaram Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.6688 of 2017

¶4

02.08.2017

¶5

Between:

¶6

M.Gangaram and others

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

and

¶9

The State of Telangana, represented by the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and another

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.Ch.Ganesh

¶12

Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader for Services-I (TS)

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

¶15

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.P.No.6688 of 2017 02.08.2017

¶16

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶17

This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the purported inaction of the respondents in implementing order, dated 23.02.2016, in O.A.No.4879 of 2015 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners for regularization of their services.

¶18

Today, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I (TS) appearing for the respondents has placed before the Court three separate but identical proceedings, dated 29.07.2017, whereby the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar, has rejected the claims of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for regularization. As regards petitioner No.1, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that his case was favourably considered for regularization and that the Chief Executive Officer has sent the proposals for approval of the Finance Department.

¶19

Mr.Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the aforementioned three proceedings, dated 29.07.2017, do not conform to the spirit of the order of the Tribunal.

¶20

Since the scope of the present writ petition is limited to the implementation of the order of the Tribunal, which as noted above has directed the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners for regularization and such consideration having been made and separate proceedings having been issued, the validity or otherwise of these proceedings cannot be the subject matter of this writ petition. If petitioner Nos.2 to 4 feel aggrieved by proceedings, dated 29.07.2017, they shall be free to assail the same by instituting separate proceedings. As regards petitioner No.1, the submission of the learned Government Pleader that his claim was favourably considered and that the approval of the Finance

¶21

¶22

CVNR,J & GSP,J W.P.No.6688 of 2017 02.08.2017

¶23

Department is awaited is placed on record and he (petitioner No.1) is given similar liberty as above, if proceedings of regularization are not issued within one month from today.

¶24

The Writ Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶25

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8213 of 2017 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

¶26

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶27

_________________________________ GUDI SEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J 02^nd August, 2017 GHN

M.Gangaram v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Gangaram v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

K.V.S. Sivudu, Vs The Labour Court, Guntur, Rep. by its Presiding Officer.

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Vs The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court-

K.Shishna, Vs District Educational Officer

B.Shashidar Nath, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage

J. v. Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Kameshwara Rao, Vs The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary