A closed order where the court found that the petitioner has been continued in service after an interim direction. Accordingly, no further orders were deemed necessary in the writ petition.
No further orders in the writ petition; the petitioner shall not be disturbed if continued in service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 21106 of 2002
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in disengaging the petitioner as conductor vide proceedings dated 27.09.2002, as illegal and arbitrary.
While admitting the writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to engage the petitioner, if there is work load, vide orders dated 24.10.2002 in WPMP No.26412 of 2002.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance with the interim orders of this Court, the petitioner is being continued in service.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that no further orders are necessary in the writ petition and, accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, if the petitioner is being continued in service, he shall not be disturbed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
27th November, 2018 cbs
2
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Writ Petition No. 21106 of 2002
(closed)
27th November, 2018
cbs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether further orders are necessary to declare the disengagement of the petitioner illegal in view of continued service.
Petitioner
Respondents
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
