Disposed

Kalyani Kumari v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/3608/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking regularization of the petitioner's service as a scavenger. Upon consent of parties, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks. The respondents are directed to consider it and pass orders within eight weeks following receipt.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks; order to respondents to consider it and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Kalyani Kumari Vs The Singareni Collieries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3608 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kalyani Kumari, W/o.Kantha Rao aged about 30 years, Scavenger in Singareni Collieries High School, Near Post Office, Kothagudem Town and District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Kothagudem, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶12

Singareni Collieries Educational Society, Rep. by its General Manager / Secretary, Qr.No.UM-1 4, Writers Basthi, Kothagudem.

¶13

J. Principal, Singareni Collieries Women's College, Kothagudem'Town and District.

¶14

Head Master, Singareni Collieries High School, Kothagudem Town and District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 Writ of lt/andamus or any other appropriate writ / direction declaring the action of respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as "scavenger" by fixing the pay as illegal, unjust, violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner as^"scavenger" from the date of her initial engagement on 19-07-2011 with all service benefits including arrears of pay by fixing the^pay scale attached to the said post.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

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 respondents herein to consider the representation Dtd.23-1 1-20'lB submitted by the petitioner for regularization of her service as scavenger from the date of her initial engagement with all attendant benefits including arrears of pay by fixing the pay scale attached to the said post in the interest of justice

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO,

¶21

S.C. FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} WRI^{T PETITIONNo.3608of 2019}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ^{petition is being disposedof at the admissionstage} with the^{consentof both PaftIes}

¶26

2 This writ^{petition is fi1edseekingthe following relief:} " . . .to^{issue Writof Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/} direction^{declaringthe actionofrespondentsinnot} regularizing^{the servicesof the petitioneras "scavenger"by} fixing^{the pay as illegal, unjust' violative of Articlesl4' l6} and 21 of^{the Constitutionof India' consequentlydirectthe} respondents^{herein to regularize the servicesof the petitioner} as "scavenger"^{from thedate of hei initialengagement on} 19.07.2011^{with all service benefitsincludingarrearsof pay} by fixing^{the pay scale attachedto the said post and to pass} such^{other order/s as thisHon'bleCourt deems fit andproper} in the^{facts and circumstances of the case in theinterestof} justice."

¶27

Heard^{Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla'counselfor the petitioner'} and Sri^{J. SreenivasaRao, StandingCounsel appearing for the} respondents.

¶28

It is contended^{by the petitionerthat shehas been working as} Scavenger^{since July, 2011'The grievance of the petitioneris that} though^{morethan10 years have elapsedfrom the dateofher working} as Scavenger,^{the respondents are not regularizing her services in the} cadre of^{Scavenger and also not extending the regular pay scale} attached^{to the post of Scavenger' The petitioner} further stated^that she has^{submitted a detailed representation to t} he respondents^on

¶29

¶30

AKS.,] W.P.No.3608 2019

¶31

23.11.2018 requesting to consider her case for regularization of her services as Scavenger and also to extend the regular pay scale attached to the post of Scavenger, but so far the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representation.

¶32

Therefore, counsel for the petitioner has contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 23. I 1 .201 8 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶33

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that there is no acknowledgment on the representation submitted by the petitioner, therefore, let the petitioner submit a representation afresh to the respondents, then the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Iaw.

¶34

This Couft, having considered the rival submissions made by leamed counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representatior-r afresh to the respondents, seeking regularization of his services and also to extend him regular pay scale attached to the post of Scavenger, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such a representation being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in another eight (g) weeks thereafter. 8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

¶36

AKS.J \'.P.No.1603 2019

¶37

Pending rniscellaneous^{petitions, if any, shallstand closed}

¶38

SD/-T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶39

i/TRUE COPY// L tii''

¶40

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To, l.TheChairmanandManagingDirector'singareniCollieriesCo.Ltd., Kothagudem.

¶43

2.TheGeneralManager/Secretary,singareniCollieriesEducationalSociety, Qr.No.UM-1 4, Writera^{Basthi, Kothagudem'}

¶44

The Principal,^{Singareni Collieries Women'sCollege' Kothagudem Town and} District.

¶45

The Head^{Master, SingareniCollieries High School'Kothagudem Town and} District.

¶46

One CC to SRI^{JITHENDERRAOVEERAMALLA,AdVOCAtEIOPUC]}

¶47

6- one CC to^{SRIJ. SREENIVASARAo, S.C, for Singareni Collieries[oPUc]}

¶48

Two CD^CoPies.

¶49

One Spare^CoPY.

MP TRT z-f

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411212021

ORDER

WP.No.3608 of 2019

,af clAl€
C1
c:,o 1g JNN2t22 J> :l
*
DEqFq(.

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

Kalyani Kumari v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalyani Kumari v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Ramesh Vs The District Collector,(Sw)

K. Subadra Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

V.Shruthi Vs The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor

Ganta Swapna Vs Dr.B.Janaradhan Reddy and Another

G. Raju Vs Smt. Sucharitha

Sandamma Gangaram Vs The State of Telangana