Dismissed

Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Hyderabad and 2 Others v. D. Prabhakar, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Telangana HC27 Nov 2018WP/16758/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing five writ petitions challenging the grant of temporary status to certain government employees. The court held the petitions misconceived as the government failed to grant relief under Tribunal directions despite eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were dismissed, interim orders vacated, and pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Chief Commissioner, Central Excise… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON Nos.16758, 20730, 20732, 26047 and 26049 of 2014

¶3

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

¶4

These writ petitions stand on par with W.P.No.9590 of 2013 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2018. Be it noted that the only direction granted by the Tribunal in the O.As., which was the cause for grievance in these writ petitions, was to confer temporary status upon the applicants in the said O.As. from the dates they became eligible for grant of such temporary status.

¶5

Sri M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents in these writ petitions, would bring it to the notice of the Court that there were three categories of employees who were entitled to be conferred temporary status - those who came under the ambit of the Circular issued by the authorities in the year 1993; those who were covered by the direction of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA V/ s. UMADEVI¹ in terms of having completed ten years of service by the date of the said judgment without the protection of any court orders; and those who came into service only after the year 1996 and did not come within the ambit of the second category. Learned counsel would further state that by virtue of the interim suspension granted by this Court, the entire process of conferring temporary status came to a grinding halt.

¶6

As observed in the order dated 12.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.9590 of 2013, we are at a loss to understand as to why the Union of India and its officials chose to file these writ petitions when it was for them to act upon the directions of the Tribunal and grant relief only when the

¶7

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶8

¶9

requirements were duly satisfied. The writ petitions, in their very inception, were therefore utterly misconceived and are accordingly dismissed.

¶10

We leave it open to the respondents in these writ petitions to make suitable representations to the authorities concerned citing as to how they would come within one of the aforestated three categories and how they would be entitled to conferment of temporary status. The authorities shall thereupon take appropriate action as directed by the Tribunal.

¶11

Interim orders granted in these cases shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to

¶12

costs.

¶13

SANJAY KUMAR,J

M. GANGA RAO, J
Date: 27.11.2018
GJ

Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Hyderabad and 2 Others v. D. Prabhakar, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Hyderabad and 2 Others v. D. Prabhakar, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saritha Fulmamdikar, Vs Union of India

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

G. Vishnu Vs The Director General of Postal Services

P.Appa Rao Vs The Tahsildar

Arjula Jyothi, Vs The State of Telangana