Dismissed

The Chairman, v. T.Vijaya Raj

Telangana HC29 Nov 2018WP/27176/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by employees challenging the grant of temporary status. The Court held the petitions were misconceived as it was for authorities to grant relief per Tribunal directions. The Court refused to interfere, left the matter open for representation, and vacated interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; respondents left to make representations on eligibility.

The Chairman, Vs T.Vijaya Raj — Service and Employment | 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.27176, 38423 and 38985 of 2012; 10473 and 19462 of 2013 and 18558 of 2014

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, Sri D.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.No.27176 of 2012 and Sri M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents in W.P.Nos.38423 & 38985 of 2012, 10473 & 19462 of 2013 and 18558 of 2014.

¶5

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.

¶6

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

¶7

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶8

¶9

state that by virtue of the interim suspension granted by this Court, the entire process of conferring temporary status came to a grinding halt.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J _________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 29.11.2018 GJ

The Chairman, v. T.Vijaya Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman, v. T.Vijaya Raj

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

Union of India, Rep by Its Chief Commissioner and 2 Others Vs Shri P.Sattaiah and 2 Others

Union of India Rep by Director General Directorate Vs Shaik Adbul Khadar

The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Vs Shaik Fareeduddin

Union of India rep. by The Chief Commissioner, Vs Shri S. Pandu Ranga

The Union of India rep. by Vs K. Laxmi, W/o K. Chandraiah

Union of India, Vs Shri a. Rajeshwar, S/o Sri Rajanna