Remanded

Saritha Fulmamdikar, v. Union of India

Telangana HC26 Nov 2018WP/1148/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, preferred by applicants involved in an earlier O.A., was disposed of by setting aside the Tribunal's order of dismissal dated 14.08.2014. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in alignment with a prior Division Bench order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1155 of 2013 set aside; O.A. remanded for consideration afresh regarding the petitioners.

Saritha Fulmamdikar, Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO

¶4

WRI T PETI TI ON No. 1148 of 2016

¶5

ORDER : (per the Hon’ ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶6

This writ petition was preferred by some of the applicants in O.A.No.1155 of 2013 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, which was dismissed, vide order dated 14.08.2014.

¶7

It is now brought to our notice by Sri K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents that some of the other applicants in O.A.No.1155 of 2013 filed W.P.No.1835 of 2015 before this Court aggrieved by the dismissal of the said O.A., vide order dated 14.08.2014, and another Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with directions, vide order dated 11.06.2018. A copy of the said order is placed on record. Perusal thereof reflects that the Division Bench was of the opinion that the Tribunal had erroneously relied upon the order dated 21.03.2014 passed in O.A.No.3593 of 2013 and accordingly set aside the order of dismissal dated 14.08.2014 passed in O.A.No.1155 of 2013. The O.A. was accordingly remanded for decision afresh after consideration of the rival contentions of the parties. Further, the Division Bench granted time to the applicants in the O.A. to file an additional affidavit in relation to subsequent developments and the respondents in the O.A. were granted liberty to file their counter affidavit.

¶8

¶9

For reasons alike, the present writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1155 of 2013 and remanding the O.A. insofar as it pertains to the petitioners herein for consideration afresh in terms of the order dated 11.06.2018 passed in W.P.No.1835 of 2015. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶10

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶11

________________
M. GANGA RAO, J
26 th November, 2018
KSM

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR

¶14

AND

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO

¶16

WRI T PETI TI ON No.1148 of 2016

¶17

26^th November, 2018

¶18

KSM

Saritha Fulmamdikar, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saritha Fulmamdikar, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Maddileti Vs The District Collector, (Sw) Kurnool

The Regional Manager Vs K.G. Krishnaiah

A P Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vs E Santhosh Kumar

Union of India Vs K.Samba Murthy

Dr K. Shobha Devi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The Union of Inida, Rep by Its Chief Commissioner and 2 Others Vs Shri R.Bhadru Nayak and Anothers