Disposed

T. Madhu v. the Secretary, Ap Legislative Assembly

Telangana HC19 Nov 2018WP/24525/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This applicant filed a writ petition seeking permanent absorption/regularization of his services as an Attender appointed in 1986. The Court directed the respondent to consider his case for regularization if he remains in service and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider petitioner's case for regularization of services if continuing in service and pass orders within four weeks.

T. Madhu Vs the Secretary, Ap Legislative Assembly — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

W.P.No.24525 OF 2003

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not regularizing/permanently absorbing the petitioner as attender under the control of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondent to absorb the petitioner permanently; and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the case.”

¶6

Heard Smt G.Sunitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondent.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was appointed as an Attender in the respondent-A.P.Legislative Assembly on 18.3.1986 and discharging his duties continuously without any complaints, his services are not regularized.

¶8

While admitting the writ petition on 21.11.2003, this Court in WPMP No.30883 of 2003 directed the respondent to continue the petitioner in service on the same terms and conditions prevalent as on that, if he is in service as on date.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the said interim direction, the petitioner was continued in service and that appropriate direction may

¶10

¶11

be given to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services.

¶12

Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondent contends that case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization as he was appointed contrary to the rules and that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, if he is continuing as on today.

¶14

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, if he is continuing as on today, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks, in accordance with rules. No costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶16

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶17

19^th November, 2018 rkk

¶18

T. Madhu v. the Secretary, Ap Legislative Assembly

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Madhu v. the Secretary, Ap Legislative Assembly

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

M.Pentaiah, Karimnagar District. Vs the Regional Manager, Apsrtc, Karimnagar Dist and Another

P.C.Christopher, Visakhapatnam. Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

T.D.P.Kumar, Miyapur, Hyderabad District Vs the Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Miyapur,R.R.District and 2 Others

P.Fakruddin, Kurnool Dist, Vs the Regional Manager, Kurnool Dist and 2 Others

A.R. Vidyadhar Vs Apsrtc, Rep.by Its Regional Managerand Anr.

A.E.Leeladharan.,Secunderabad Vs Chairman.,Rail Bhavan.,New Delhi