Disposed

Mirza Rahmatullah Baig v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Nov 2019WP/4158/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking salary arrears by directing the second respondent to submit payment proposals to the seventh respondent through the first respondent within four weeks, after which the seventh respondent must decide within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit proposals through the first respondent to the seventh respondent within four weeks; seventh respondent to decide within eight weeks thereafter.

Mirza Rahmatullah Baig Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

W.P.No.4158 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 to 5 in not admitting the bills submitted by the 2^nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and further direct respondents 3 to 5 to admit the bills submitted by the 2^nd respondent vide Lr.Roc.No.C1/4831/2009, dt 31.10.2018 for payment of salaries to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was appointed as Bill Collector and he was discharging his duties as such. While so, the respondents have dismissed him from service vide order dated 15.12.2009 on the ground of misappropriation of funds. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.596 of 2010 before the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 11.8.2011 allowed the said O.A. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondents have preferred W.P.No.1682 of 2012 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 22.11.2013 dismissed the said writ petition.

¶8

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents have reinstated him into service, they are not paying salary from the date of allowing O.A. i.e., 11.8.2011 till he was reinstated into service i.e., 11.9.2018.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the 2^nd respondent has submitted proposals to the 3^rd respondent on 31.10.2018, the 3^rd respondent is not passing any orders on the ground that the said proposals should be forwarded through the Government. It is prayed that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 2^nd respondent to submit proposals to the 7^th respondent through the 1^st respondent for payment of salary, so that the 7^th respondent can pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the 2^nd respondent has directly submitted proposals to the 7^th respondent. The 2^nd respondent is not the competent authority to forward proposals and it has to be submitted through the 1^st respondent. If the 2^nd respondent submits proposals to the 7^th respondent through the 1^st respondent, then the 7^th respondent would consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Writ Petition can be

¶13

¶14

disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to submit proposals to the 7^th respondent through the 1^st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such proposals, the 7^th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any shall stand

¶17

closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Date: 20.11.2019
rkk

¶18

Mirza Rahmatullah Baig v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirza Rahmatullah Baig v. The State of Telangana

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

Amanganti Mallamma , Susheela Vs The Union of India

Jilla Pandu Vs The State of Telangana

Yalaka Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Grameena Vikas Bank Temporary Employees Vs a.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Head Office

Vancha Chandana Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Arjula Shesha Reddy and 6 Others Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization and 8 Others