Dismissed

The Union of India., Centra Board of Excise and 2 Others v. a.Swamy, and Another

Telangana HC6 Dec 2018WP/6004/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Union of India and its officials as utterly misconceived. Noting that the petitions were posted without representation from the Union, the Court observed that the cause for grievance was solely the procedural halt in conferring temporary status, which was within the Union's discretion to implement based on Tribunal directions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as completely misconceived; interim orders were vacated, and the respondents were left open to make representations to the authorities.

The Union of India., Centra Board of… — 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.5986 and 6004 of 2014

¶3

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

¶4

Despite the matter being posted ‘for orders’, there is no representation for the petitioners, Union of India and its officials in the Customs Department.

¶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 Pratap Narayan Sanghi, 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.

¶7

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶8

¶9

As observed in the order dated 12.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.9590

¶10

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

¶13

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

_________________
SANJAY KUMAR,J

¶15

_________________ M. GANGA RAO, J

¶16

Date:06.12.2018

¶17

The Union of India., Centra Board of Excise and 2 Others v. a.Swamy, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India., Centra Board of Excise and 2 Others v. a.Swamy, and Another

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

G. Gattumallu Vs The Director of Scheduled Castes Development Department

The Chief Conservator of Forests Vs K.Ramanijaneyulu

B.R.Leelavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi and 2 Vs Y.Ramanuja Reddy, Hyderabad and Another

K.Ramanaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Vs Nakirakanti Yakaiah