Allowed

A. Yellaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Spl.Chief Secretary

Telangana HC6 Jan 2020WP(TR)/598/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition for regularisation of services, relying on a prior Division Bench order (N. Venkaiah) which the Court held remains in force despite a pending Supreme Court SLP. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for retrospective regularisation from the fifth year of service within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the petitioner's case for regularisation of services with retrospective effect from the date of completion of five years of service, preferably within eight weeks.

A. Yellaiah Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.598 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

When the matter is taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner had contended that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. v. N. Venkaiah¹ and the petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking similar relief of regularisation of his services with retrospective effect from the date of completion of five years in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services from the date on which he has completed five years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and revise the date of regularisation in accordance with the aforesaid settled law.

¶4

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed about the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that against the batch of regularisation matters, the State has carried the matter in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP is pending.

¶5

This Court, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order

¶6

1 2018 (4) ALT 6 (D.B.)

¶7

¶8

rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. Venkaiah¹ . So far as the contention of the Government Pleader that SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, mere pendency of SLP will not nullify the order rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. Venkaiah¹ . Since the law laid down by this Court in the case of N. Venkaiah¹ is holding the field as on today, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his services with retrospective effect by reckoning his service from the date of completion of five years in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period of time, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶9

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶11

6^th January, 2020 v v

¶12

A. Yellaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Spl.Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Yellaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Spl.Chief Secretary

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. Ram Mohan Vs The State of Telangana And 2 Others

T Surender Babu S/O. Samba Murthy and 27 Others Vs State of Telangana Prl Secy, Home Dept., and 4 Others

B.Ramdas Vs the Depot Manager and Another

T.Anjaiah Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Ramachandra Reddy, R.R. Dist Vs Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Devp Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

D. Sai Reddy Vs The District Medical and Health Officer