Disposed

Raj Kumar Pasi v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 2 Others

Telangana HC19 Apr 2021WP/5992/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking redress for non-payment/service as a security guard appointed under a land acquisition rehabilitation scheme. The court directed the respondent company to consider pending representations within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider representations submitted by the petitioner on 30.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Raj Kumar Pasi Vs The Singareni Collieries Company… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

IVONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5992 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

[9j l!u^fa1ea9i,^{Slo SeetalPasi,Age:34 years, Occ: Security Guard,} R/o H.No.3-2-1 3412,Hamali Basthi, Yettandu, Bhadradri Kothlgudem'District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hydera6ad.2. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its Chief Vigilance Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

¶11

The Singareni C_ollieries Company Limited (SCCL), Rep by jts General I,4anager, Yellandu Area, Bhadradri Kothagudem Distiict.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 an order or orders more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to perform his Security Guard Job at S & PC Department, without issuance of any notice is illegal, arbitrary and against the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

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 direct the respondents to consider the representations made by the petition er on 30t1212019, 0910612020 and 2210212021, pending disposat of the above writ petition.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH. VENKAT RAMAN

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO,

¶17

SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

W.P.No. 5992 o 2021

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This S(/rit Petition is filed^{seeking the follorving relief:}

¶23

t'to issue an older ot or<lers mofe partictllarly one in thc nature of tlle $'r'it of^{Mandamusby declaling the action of the} r'espondcnts in not^{permifting the petrtionerto perform his} Security Gtlard Job^{at S&PCDepartmerrt,without issuanceof} aDy notice is illegal, arbitrary^{and againstthcriShts} guaranteed by thc Constitution of^{India andto passsuch odrer'} order or orde|s trs this^{Hon'ble Coult Inay deemsfit justand} proper in the circulnstances ofthc^case."

¶24

Heard learned counsel^{on either side.}

¶25

It is the case of the^{petitioner that his land was acquired by} the respondent-Company^{and the resPondent-Company} Provided certain extent of land and lob^{to the affectedproiect displacement} families as per G.O.Ms.No.97,^{dated 29.8.2008.As per the said} scheme, he was appointed^{as a SecurityGuard. Thereafter,the} respondent-Company erroneously^{stopped his services. Hence,he} submitted a representation dated^{30.12.2019to the respondents.} But, so far, no orders have been^{passed thereon.}

¶26

Learned counsel apPearing for^{the petitionercontended that} the appropriate orders be^{passed in the writ petition directing the} respondents to consider the^{representationsubmitted by the} petitioner on 30.12.2019, in accordance^{with law.}

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel^{appearingfor the respondent-} Company contended that^{the petitioner is not working with the}

¶28

re spondent-Company, he was provided employment by private Securiry Agency and hence, the question of continuing the petitioner in service does not arise. However, since the representation of the petitioner is pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and^{pass appropriate} orders thereon.

¶29

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is^{of the view that this} Writ Petition can be disposed of directing^{the respondents to} consider the representation dated^30.12.2019 submitted^{by thc} petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in^{accordance with law,} preferably, within a period of eight weeks from^{the dateof receipt} of a copy of this ordet.

¶30

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed^{of. No costs.}

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions'^pending, if^{any shall stand closed'}

¶32

SD/- T.TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^RE'GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To, 1 The Chairman and^{Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Limited'} Sinoareni Bhavan,^{Red Hills, Hvderabao'} 2. Yiii,'cn"iJiVirirr"i"^{oni."r' biffifr6ollieriescompanvLimited' Kothasudem'} Bhadradri Kothagudem. 3 The General Manaqer,^{singareni collieries companyLimited (sccL)' Yellandu} niea. enadradri^{Kothagudem District'} 4. A;;'c"i't"' s;' Cr,.^{Vui[it Raman, Advocate[oP Uc]} 5. ffi dd i;^{5;i J S,a;.irasi-nat,sC ror siniareni collieries [9PUC]} o Two CD CoPies CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910412021

ORDER

W.P.No.5992 of 2021

H e eq T.q,
{
q
oJ
r0l JU},! 2021 ;
,\r;]
*
t:
\ r-:..r - ' I.:.

¶40

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶41

Lt
o8
xD )

Raj Kumar Pasi v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Pasi v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 2 Others

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

R. Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and 3 Others

Jodu Lingaiah, Vs Sri N. Sridhar and 3 others

Gopu Pochaiah, Vs Sri N. Sridhar and 3 others

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Vs The District Collector (Tw)

Kinnera Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ranajit Mahapatra Vs The Chief Manager, And 2 Others