Disposed

Smt. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Hyderabad. v. Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences and Another

Telangana HC9 Sept 2021WP/7657/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the petitioner's grievance to be treated as resolved in pursuance of an order granted in a linked miscellaneous petition. Consequently, the Court closed the writ petition without any costs and declared that no further orders were necessary on the subject.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without costs and no further orders were passed, as the grievance had already been resolved.

Smt. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Hyderabad. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEN,4BER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7657 OF 2006

¶8

Betw een:

¶9

Smt. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. R. Ramachandra Rao Lecturer in College of Nursing, Nllt/S R/o, Flat No.404, lt/adhavi Towers, Moti Nagar, Hydrabad-lB

¶10

..,PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Nizam's tnstitute of Medical Sciences^(NIMS), Rep. by its Director, Somaliguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director. Nizam's lnstitute of Medical Sciences^(NIMS), Somajiguda, H ydera bad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleasedto} issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction^{particularlyone in the nature of writ of} l\4andamus declaring the action of the respondent in^{denying the corresponding} Revised Pay Scale^(Central) to the Petitioner^{which was extendedto all other} categories of Posts in Nizam"s lnstitute of^{tvledical Sciences, as arbitrary,illegal,} discrjminatory and violative of Articles^{14, 16 & 21 of the Constitutionof lndia and} consequently declare that the^petitioner is entitled to^{correspondingRevised Pay} Scale (central) benefit of Rs. 8000-275-13500^{with effect from the date of her} appointment and other consequential benefits^{including arrears.}

¶16

WPMP. NO: 9802 OF 2006

¶17

Petition under section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleased to directthe} respondent to fix the^pay Scale of the^{petitioner in terms of V Pay Revision} Commission^(Central) reco^{m mend atio ns.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. D^V NAGARJUNA^BABU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. G^ANANDAM

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶22

W.P.No.7657 OF 2006

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the pedrioner submits that in pursuance of the irrtcrirrr ordcr granrcd bv this Courr on 12.77,2007 in WpMp Ncr.9ti02 ol 2006, the gricvancc of the pedrioncr has becn rcsolvcd.

¶25

Sincc the grier.ance o[ the petitioncr has been re solvecl, t-ro futther orders are necessary in this Writ petition.

¶26

Accordingly, the Writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶27

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶28

closed.

¶29

SD/-K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE^COPY// Cn, SECTION^OFFICER

¶30

To, 1 . One CC^{to Sri. D V Nagarjuna Babu'Advocat:-IOPUC]} 2 5nI6;^{i; s;i. a Anaidam'AdvocateIoPUC]} 3 fwo CD^CoPies. 4 One SPare^CoPY

PN4

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/09/2021

ORDER

WP.No.7657 of 2006

S iA rE
a
.5
21 $EP2$n
oJo
t
t

¶37

Closing the WP Without costs.

Smt. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Hyderabad. v. Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Hyderabad. v. Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences and Another

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

Khaja Showkat Ali, Nalgonda District. Vs Divisional Co.Op.Officer, Nalgonda District and 2 Others

Planning, Cordn and Monitoring Board for Min(Pcmb), Hyd and Anr. Vs Member Secy., Admn and Fee Reg Committee, Hyd and 3 Ot

Satyanarayana Reddy Gaddam Vs The Government of India

Smt.Ch.Narsamma Vs Central Govt.Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court

T.V. Ramana Reddy Vs a.P.S.Coop.,Consumer Fed. Ltd., Hyd

Sirajuddin, Nizamabad Vs N.P.D.C.L., and 3 Others