The High Court of Telangana observed that the main writ petition before it was infructuous as it had already been dismissed and accordingly dismissed the same in a superseding miscellaneous application.
Writ petition declared infructuous and dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD , (Special Original Jurisdiction)
N/ONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION NO;12385 OF 2006
Between:
Smt. Shafeeq Subera W/o. Late K Ahmed Ali Khan, Rl/o.H.No.16-9-440, Otd Malakpet, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RES',NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direclion more particularly one in the nature of Writ of IVlandamus declaring the directing the 3rd Respondent to approve the proposals made by the 4th Respondent Vide Letter dated 26-04-2003 and regularize the date of increment and further sanctioned one increment in existing pay scale of Rs.5,980/to Rs.12,100/- with effect from 01-01-2000 i.e, on completion oI (24) years of incremental yea rs.
WPMP. NO: 15388 OF 2006
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to approve the proposals made by the 4th Respondent vide letter dated 26-04-2003 and regularize the date of increment and further sanctioned one increment in existing pay scale of Rs.5,9801 to Rs.12,100/- with effect from 0101-2000 i.e., on completion of (24) years of incremental years pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such other order or orders,
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. A. V. RATNAM
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Counsel for Respondent No. 4: -----
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SITAVILI
WRIT PETITIo No.1238 5 of2006
ORDER:
Counseltbrthepetitionersubmittedthatthewri"petitionhas
bccor.ne irttiucttrous.
Recordingthesatne,thewritpetitionisdismissedasinfructuous.
No order as to costs.
Pc nd ins rrriscellaneousapplicatiorrs,if any, shallstand closed'
St)/.T.TIRUMALADEVI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER
To 1. One CC to Sri S.A.V'Ratnam,Advocate [OPU^C] . i. i;; cc.'io GiF"inighei Education,nigncourt for the stateof Telangana. tourl
MBC
HIGH COURT* *
DATED: 1610812021
g 5TA IE o i<br>t
.) ).o
o 0I stPzstl .A
t
a
-: rJ
-',du'
ORDER
WP.No.12385 of 2006
DISMISSING THE WRIT' PETITION,AS
q
0'
a:t
b
INFRUCTUOUS, WIT HOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 151 CPC is maintainable given its prior dismissal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Shafeeq Subera W/o. Late K Ahmed Ali Khan
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education, Hyderabad
The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad
Deputy Educational Officer, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad
The Secretary & Correspondent, Girls High School, liazzam Jahi Market, Shah Ali Banda Hyderabad
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
