Dismissed

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

Telangana HC26 Nov 2018WP/18375/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed writ petitions challenging the grant of temporary status to employees, holding the petitions misconceived as it was for authorities to act per Tribunal directions. The grant of status was left open for future representations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

The Union of Inida, Rep by Its Chief… — 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.38042 and 38211 of 2012; 4493, 6739 and 9006 of 2013; 15975, 17822, 18375, 19088, 19099 and 19580 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 respondentsapplicants, 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

¶7

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶8

¶9

upon the directions of the Tribunal and grant relief only when the 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: 26.11.2018
IBL

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Saritha Fulmamdikar, Vs Union of India

Dr K. Shobha Devi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh