Dismissed

Shaik Sardar v. Telangana State Northern Power Distributiion Company Ltd.

Telangana HC1 Dec 2021WA/706/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by an erstwhile appellant (now petitioner) against an earlier order upholding an employee's successful challenge to a 30-year delayed stoppage of increment. The Court held that since substantial relief was already granted and affirmed, no case for interference existed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal No.706 of 2014 dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shaik Sardar Vs Telangana State Northern… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECENiIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL 706 2014

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 4.8.2O11 in WP.No.30996 of 2010 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shaik Sardar, S/o. Shaik Mahaboob Ali Working as Forman - Grade I, O/o. Divisinal Ele_ctrical EngineerO & lV, APNPDCL, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District , R/o.H.No.5-2-1e4lA, Vikas Nagar, Kamareddy, NizaT?B?dLL?i,{ffil.,, pE,,oNER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Companv Ltd.. Reo bv its Chairman and amp Managing Director, Opp REC^petrot pump, Sub6dari Warangal

¶12

Cause Title is amended as per Court Order Dated 22t11t2}19ln lA No 1 of 2016

¶13

The Chief General lManager (HRD),, Northern power Distributiion Companv of AP Ltd., Corporate Office, Opp: REC Petrol^pump, Subedari Waranoal'506 004

¶14

The Superintending Engineer (operations), Northern power Distribufiion Company of AP Ltd., Nzamabad

¶15

The Divisional Electrical Engineer (O & C), Northern power Distributiion Company of AP Ltd., Kamareddy, Nizamabad District

¶16

"'RESPoNDENTS

¶17

counset for the Appettant: SRI M. NARSIMLoo

¶18

Counsel for Respondents: SRI ZAKIR ALI DANISH

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'I LE THE^{CHIEF JUSTICE} TISH CHAND RA SHARMA AND

¶21

. HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶22

WRIT APPEAL^{NO.706 of 2Ol4}

¶23

JUDGMENT: tPer thr ilot', bi.lh(' a'llie./ -trslr'e S'rlrslr^(llii' 'irrr^sl(r,r'Ld/

¶24

The pr esent writ appeal^{is arisingout of order dated} 04.08.2011^{rassed in W.P.No.30996ol 2010 by'the learned} Single Judge^.

¶25

The fr cts of the^{case establish that an orderof} punishment was^{passed on 08.09.1981inflicting punishment} of stoppage^r f^{one incrementwith cumulative effect and after} 20 years a 'rrit^{petitionwas preferred'The learnedSingle} Judge has^p rtly^{allowed the writ petition and has held that} the order ol^{stoppageof increment will has a prospective} effect, as the^{order was not implemented for almost 30 years'} Against the^t rder^{delivered by the learnedSingleJudge'u'rit} appeal was^{preferredby the Northern Porn'er Distribution} Company^{of A.P. Limited i e , the employer of the present} appellant ant^{in the presence of the counselfor the appellant'} the writ^{app:al was decided by an order dated 23'07 20 13'} Meaning^{ther eby, after hearingboth the parties' the Division} BenchhasplLssedtheorderdismissingthewritappealofthe employer.^{N rw the present appellant'after dismissalof the} appeal^{prefer:edby the employer'became wiser and has also} fiiecl the Pres^{)nt writ aPPeal'}

¶26

¶27

This Court^{has carefullygone through the order passed} by the learned^{Single Judge and is of the opinion that the} empioyee has^{approachedthe High Court afterlapse of 20} years. The learned^{Single Judge was justifiedin a-llowing the} writ petition in^{part. Since substantial relief has alreadybeen} granted by the learned^{SingleJudge and the order of the} learned Single^{Judge has already been affirmedin the earlier} writ appeal, no case^{for interference by this Court is made out} in the matter.

¶28

The writ appeal is^{accordingly dismissed.}

¶29

Misceilaneous^{petitions,ifany, shall stand closed'}

¶30

There shali be no order^{as to costs.}

¶31

SD/.C.V.MALLIKARJ U NA VARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/t Cu', SECTION OFFICER

¶32

To, 1. One CC to Sri M Narsimloo Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC to Sri Zakir Ali Danish, Advocate^(OPUC) 3. Two CD Copies 4. One Spare Copy IUBC BS .<-' G

¶33

HIGH COURT

¶34

DATED: 0111212021

¶35

:-f P.E S r"
y'r.'
2 t} ntc?.?1 iI
.:

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

WA.No.706^{of 2014}

¶38

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT APPEAL}

¶39

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶40

Shaik Sardar v. Telangana State Northern Power Distributiion Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Sardar v. Telangana State Northern Power Distributiion Company Ltd.

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

Nagarjuna Nagar Welfare Association Vs the Zonal Commissioner, Hyd.

Forum for Good Governance Vs The State of Telangana

The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary, Vs Muddam Jana Reddy