Quashed

Thalluri Pradeep Kumar and 4 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC21 Dec 2021WP/16953/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, set aside an order removing drivers from service issued on the ground that they were not retired police personnel or ex-servicemen. The Court held the removal arbitrary, directed reconsideration of their cases for vacancies, and disposed of the petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 01/09/2020 removing petitioners from service set aside; respondents directed to reconsider petitioners' case for continued service as drivers if vacancies exist.

Thalluri Pradeep Kumar and 4 others Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{TWENTY FIRST DAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION^{NO. 16953oF 2020}

¶6

Between:--'i.-inif f uti Pradeep^{Kumar, S/o.Late age'34 Years,Oqg'--Driver' R/o 8-}

¶7

' ioolrA,noua nuinbei-3,-r1ie* vi*t anrnd nagar colony, HIr/lT Road, chintal Hyderabad-54.

¶8

Hyderabad-54.

¶9

Z. e'anOam Lingam,^{S/o. G.Krishna,} .aS-e 9q .years,^{Occ' Driver'.Fl/o'7-2-} -' t o +t7 qn,omr<"a, nbgiilbrgi|. ring roaa,^{-cnintal(unta,} L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad-74. a. vhumarh- Swurv,-s)b'Gi"^{V.Hama 'R99} f^o-e,44,^{occ'Driver' Fl/o'H'No29-} - lZtiti, East kaktiya nager neredmet, Hyd-500056' a^p-viavl sioar. slo stshJpainv,^{ngei 36, occ. Driver, Fl/o. 31--07,lndirama} - ;1.;;i , eaclupally ounoigai , gdloifiqisamma, tvledchal dist T S 500043' s. 6liia,{,'parrv^{r.rbrei6[ri,rai, sld. b i"itappa,Age.33 years occ. Driver, BJo.c7-} - ioo]nriiiui,waou, viii"g6 nas"iu1o, x"b5n!ar"wranoat Vikarabad DistJ09350. ...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND'"'L 1," State of relangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Department of Home and Legislature,^{Secretariat,Hyderabad} ^ .

¶11

z. ine coimmissioner^{of ioliie cynaraoao. cyberabad,*rrn, *ifI3J3r,i.l=*r,}

¶12

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} toissueWrit,orderorDirection,moreparticularlyoneinnatureofWritof Irrlandamus, declaring^{the actionof the Respondents, particularly RespondentNo 2} order dated. 01logl2o2o.^{Rc.No.E4l2920 lcybt2o2o, and D.o,No.222412020 removal} of SPOs Cyberabad^{from services with immediate effect as theydo not comeunder} (retired) Police^{personal/Ex-servicemenand Ex-parliamentarystaff. as illegal,} arbitrary and against^{the principles of naturalJustice and against the settlinglaw.} IA NO 10F 2

¶13

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operatlon^{of the order dated.01/09/2020.Rc.No.E4l29201cyb12020, and} D.O.No.222412020^{removal of sPos cybarabad from services with immediate effect} as they do not^{come under (retired) Police personal/Ex-servicemen and EX-} parliamentary staff^{pending disposal of the main Writ Petition'}

¶14

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:SRI PATILSHANKAR RAO}

¶15

Counsel for the^{Respondents: SPECIAL GP FOR HOME}

¶16

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶17

¶18

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI} RIT ETI N No. 95 of 2

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This writ^{pelitionis filedseekingthef ollowingrelief:}

¶21

"..-.. to^{issue Writ,Orderor Direction' moreparticu[arty} one in nature^{of Writ of Mandamus dectaringthe actionof the} Respondents^{particutartyRespondent No 2 order dated 01/09i2020} Rc.No.E4l2920/CvbITAZA^{and D O No 2224l2020 removalofSPOs} Cyberabad^{fromservices with immediateeffect'as they doesnot} come under^{(ret'ired) Poticepersonat/Ex'servicemen and Ex-} partiamentary^{staffas ittegat, arbitraryand againstthe principles} of natural^{Justice ..'.. ".}

¶22

Heordleornedcounseloppeoringforthepetitionersondthe leornedSpeciolGovernmentPleoderoppeoringforthe respon dents.

¶23

It hos been^{contendedby the petitioners thot they were initiolly} oppoinled^{os drivers vide proceedingsdoted14J02014 ond since} then, they^{hove been dischorging their dutles iothe besi} so.tisfoction^{of theirsuperiors ond everyoneconcerned' The2nd} respondeni^{hod oppointed them os drivers'os 'therewos severe} shorioge of^{drivers ond there were no ex-servicemen ovoilobleo't} thot^{point of time}

¶24

The^{grievonce of ihe pelilionersis thol the 2nd respondenthos} removedthemwithoulossigningonyreosonsvideproceedings doted^{01 .09,2020.}

¶25

Leorned counsel^{oppeoring for the petitionershod coniended} thot in the^{order of removol, ii is stoled thot the petitionersdo nol} come under retired^{PolicePersonnel/Ex-servicemen ond Ex-} Poromilitory force.^{Admittedly, the petitionersore not retiredPolice} Personnel/Ex-servicemen^{ond Ex-Poromiliiory force ond thisf oct wos}

¶26

known to^{the respondentsond the oction of the 2no respondentin} removing^{the petiiionersthol they do not come under retiredPolice} Personnel/Ex-servicemen^{ond Ex-Poromiliiory force is on orbitrory} exercise.

¶27

Leorned^{counsel oppeoringfor the petitioners hod further} conlended^{thol olong with lhe petilioners'onolher 2lindividu o ls} oppointed^{os drivers vide proceedingsdoted 14,]0'2014'} Strongely,^{the 2nd respondent hos possed the order of removolonly} in respect^{of ihe petitionersond other 21 individuols'who were} oppointed^{olong with the peiitioners'ore still being continued os} driv ers.

¶28

Therefore,leornedcounseloppeoringforlhepetitionershod contended^{thot opproprioteordersbe possedin lhe wril pelition} directing^{ihe respondentsto re-considerthe cose of ihe peiitioners} for continuing^{os driversby setling oside the order of removol'}

¶29

LeornedSpecioIGovernmenlPleoderoppeoringforlhe respondenis^{hod conlended thot the pelitioners were oppointedos} drivers,^{when there wos severe shortoge of drivers in lhe yeor20,14} osoninterimmeosureond,theywouldnotcomeunderretired Police Personnel/Ex-servicemen^{ond Ex-Poromililory force ond it wos} mode cleor^{in the oppointmeniorder thot os ond when} ex-servicemen^{ore ovoiloble' they willbe rePloced bY the} ex-servicemen^{ln lhe lnstont cose' the respondentshove received} opplicotions^{from ex-servicementor oppointmentos drivers ond il} wos indicoied^{in ihe oppoinlmeni orders itself thot os ond when} ex-servicemen^{ore ovolloble'the servicesof the pelilioners would} be removed^{wiihoui ossigningony reosons' Accordingly'the}

¶30

¶31

respondents^{hove rightlypossedihe order of removolvide} proceedings doted^{01 Og 2O2ATherefore' there ore no merits in the} wril^{pelition ond the some is lioble to be dismissed'}

¶32

This Courl,^{hoving consideredthe rivol submissionsmodeby} the^{porties, is of the considered view thoi the order of removol} possed by the^{2no respondent is wilhoulossigningony reosonsond} the services^{of the petitionersore removedonly on ihe ground thot} lhey would^{not come under retired PolicePersonnel/Ex-servicemen} ondEx.Poromllitoryforce.Admittedly,therespondenlsoreowore of the^{foct thot the petitioners would not comeunderretired Police} Personnel/Ex-servicemen^{ondEx-Poromilitoryforce ond theretore'} the^{question of removingthe servicesof the petitloners on the} ground thot they^{would not come under under retiredPolice} Personnel/Ex-servlcemen^{ond Ex-Poromllitoryforce is on orbitrory} exercise.^{Therefore, the impugned order doled Ol'09'2020is lioble} to be set^{oside ond occordlnglyit is set oside' The respondents ore} directed^{to re-considerihe case of the petitioners for continuingos} drivers,^{if there ore ony voconcies'in occordoncewi'th the Rules'}

¶33

Withtheoboveobservoiions,theWrilpetitionisoccordingly disposed^{of . No costs'}

¶34

Pending^{miscelloneous Peiitions'if ony, sholl slond closed}

¶35

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Departmentof Home and Legislature'State of} Telanoana, secretariat,^Hyderabad'

¶38

z. ii5'i% #ili."='i,ii,Lii,t^{po rilil Cvuirauaa' cv.u^efg} P!.d'^{Ra nsa Reddv Di stri ct'}

¶39

One CC to^{Sri PatilShankarRao, Advocate[uHUUl} ;. i;;^-c6, to Sp""iir^{cil;;'nome,Higniourt for the Stateof Telansanaat} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶40

Two CD^CoPies.

¶41

One Spare^CoPY.

l,4P

"<sup>-

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11212021

ORDER

WP.No.16953 of 2020

9? E-iATS {)
].<
,|:
-l
a)
Sq lrtl208

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

*5 k ,-

Thalluri Pradeep Kumar and 4 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thalluri Pradeep Kumar and 4 others v. The State of Telangana and another

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

K.Madhu Vs the State of Telangana and 2 others

Sri Muralidhar Shrouthi and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

K.Upendar Rao Vs The Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Project

T Saritha and 3 Others, Vs Chief Secy., Rural Poverty Hyd., and 4 Others

Mohd. Khalid Sarwar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gangam Shekar Vs The State of Telangana