Allowed

Sidda Gattaiah, v. The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd.

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022WA/406/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal preferring to maintain the Single Judge's order dismissing a petition seeking posting orders. The Court held training alone did not confer a right to posting given the settlement on voluntary retirement allowance.

What did the court decide?

Appellants given liberty to approach respondents for payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 2 lakhs or 24 months wages; subsequent appeal to be disposed of at stage of submission.

Sidda Gattaiah, Vs The Singareni Colleries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IVONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 406 0F 2019

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause ,5^^"jj" L_elters patent preferred the against the order dated 23t11t2018 in W.p.No.22622 of 2OO2 on tn" iirJoi tu Hiqh Courr

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sidda Gattaiah, S/o.Rajamallu, R:/o.Akkepalli Village, Manthani Tq

¶10

Karimnagar District

¶11

2 S/o.Gattaiah, R:/o.Akkepaili Viilase, Manthani Tq. Karimnasar 3i3fl[,*",r,"n,

¶12

.) Mabbu Shankaraiah, S/o. Rajaiah, R/o.Akkepalli Viilage, Manthani Tq, Karimnagar District.

¶13

Saindla Kristaiah, S/o.Komaraiah, Rl/o.Akkepalli Viilage, Manthani Tq. Karimnagar District.

¶14

Burra Venkataiah, S/o.Ellaiah, Ri/o.Akkepalli Village, Manthani Tq. Karimnagar

¶15

ti_ XlJfi:l^{*r",, S/o.Laxmaiah, Rl/o.AkkepaliViilase,Manthanirq. Karimnagar}

¶16

1. Chekka Shankar, S/o.Chekka Mallaiah, R/o.Akkepalli Viilage, Manthani Tq. Karimnagar District.

¶17

AND

¶18

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶19

The singareni coleries -co Ltd., Rep. by its Director personner Admn. and

¶20

_^{Welfare, Kothagudem, Khammam} Distrti.2. The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd., n"p. OV it, General Manager Ramagundam Area-ll, codavari 8 Incline, Ramagundam iOiitl-

¶21

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶22

LA.NO:1 OF 2019

¶23

Petition Under section .151 .cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in, the affidavit fited in support of the- peiitio;: inu fflgn Court may be pteased to pass an order condoning the delay of 99 days in filing- the writ applat.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY

¶25

counsel for the Respondents : sRr.J.sREENrvAsA RAo (sc FoR sTNGARENT coLLERrEs)

¶26

The Court made the following Judgment : -

¶27

THE HON'BLE THE C HIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE M RS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶28

UIRIT APPEAL No.4O6 OF 2019

¶29

JUDGMENT: eer rtlt Ilon'tte th(. Chi"J,rustice Ujiat Bhu!)on)

¶30

Hearcl Mr. K. Sanjay, learned counsel for appellants/ petltioners.

¶31

This intra-court appeal is directed against the final order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition i.e., W.P.No.22622 of 2OO2 filed by the appellants/ petitioners.

¶32

By hling the related writ petition appellants/petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents to provide posting orders to the appellants as Badli Fillers. Case of the appellants/ petitioners before leaned Single Judge was that they were appointed as Badli Fillers in the quota earmarked for dependants of employees who had either taken voluntary retirement or who had been declared as medically unfit. They were sent for training on 21.08.1997. On completion of training, when they reported before second respondent for posting orders seven (7) out of sixteen (16) were given posting orders. Remaining persons including the appellants/petitioners were

¶33

assured that they \rould be given posting orders in due course, but such posting orders were not forthcoming.

¶34

Respondents in their counter affidavit took the stand that as and when vacancies would be made available, not only^the appellants/ petitioners but also those in the^queue as^on 31.12.1997 would be considered for appointment.^Respondents settled the matter with the Workers' Union on 05.07.1999 agreeing to provide employment to dependants of^ex-employees as on 31.12.1997 in terms of Memorandum of Settlement^dated 06.06. 1998. It was contended before the Court^thatthe appellants/ petitioners had opted for^{receiving lump sum} amount of Rs.2 lakhs or 24 months wages in^{terms of Circuiar} dated 11.10.2OO1. Except appellant No.S/^{petitionerNo.5, all} the appellants/petitioners had submitted applications^on 29.07.2OO2 opting for lump sum amount^{of Rs.2 lakhswhich} was paid by the respondents. On due consideration,^learned Single Judge held as follows:

¶35

This Court has considered^the rival^{submissionsmade by the} parties and the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioners that they were sent for training^for recruitment^and they have successfully completed^{thetraining. Butthe} respondents failed to^{give postingorders to them.It is the} contentign of the respondents that^{all the petitionersexcept} p€titioner No.5, received lump sum amount of Rs.2 lal<hs, in lieu of dependent employment as^{per the settlement} arrived^at with the Union- The Fetitioners have^{failed to controvert the} same. Further, mere^undergoing training^{for recruitment rvould} not give any right to the^{petitionersto seekposting orders.}

¶36

Therefore, the approach of the petitioners is not bona Jfide and this Court cannot direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners merely because thel, have undergone recruitment training.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Perition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, miscellaneous pctitions pending, if any, shatl stand closed.

¶38

\ \

¶39

Thus we hnd that learned Single Judge did not accept the stand taken by the appellants/ petitioner that because the appellants/ petitioners had successfully completed the training, they should be given posting orders. Further in view of the stand taken by the respondents that a lump sum amount of Rs.2 lakhs would be paid to the appellants/ petitioners as part of the settlement which \ /as not controverted by the appellants/ petitioners, learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

¶40

( (

¶41

We do not find any error or infirmity in the view talen by the learned Single Judge.

¶42

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners submits that none of the appellants/petitioners have been paid lump sum amount of Rs.2 lakhs. If that be the position, we give liberty to the appellants/petitioners to approach the respondents for payment of lump sum amount of Rs.2 lakhs or 24 months wages whichever is more. Let the

¶43

¶44

¶45

appcllants /^{petitioners approachthe respondcnts withinfifteen} days from today^{by u'ay of a written representation whereafter} respondents shatl do the^{needfulin accordance with law within} thirty days from the^{date ofapproach by} the appellants/^{petitioners, if not already paid.}

¶46

This disposes ol the^{writappeal' Miscellaneous} applications^{pending, if any, shall stand closedHowever'there} shall be no order^{as to costs}

¶47

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

.S+,"*:l;l!l,i

l.TheDirectorPersonnelAdmn.andWelfare,singareniColleriesCoLtd., Kothagudem, Khammam^District.

¶53

1. fil G;;;;rl Manager,^{Singareni ColleriesCo.Ltd} '^{RamagundamArea-ll'} Godavari 8 lncline,^{Ramagundam505 211-}

¶54

a. One CC to SRI.B.G.RAVINDER^{REDDY,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶55

O;; CC to SRI.J.SREENIVASA^{RAO (SC FORSINGARENI} COLLERIES) TOPUC]

¶56

Two CD CoPies

¶57

One spare copy

S.A BSA.-".-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712022

a't-''- HE ST4 16'
oF
tiH 2e 5E i )fll)?

JUDGMENT

WA.No.406 of 2019

DISPOSING OF THE^W.A

WITHOUT COSTS.

o,/,.--="

Sidda Gattaiah, v. The Singareni Colleries Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidda Gattaiah, v. The Singareni Colleries 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

Uma Narayan Borbande Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

M/s. Ekta Gateway Towers LLP Vs A.S.N. Raju and 6others

The a.P.Mineral Dev.Corp.Ltd.,Rep.by Vc.Andmd.,Hyderabad. Vs Kurram Shiva Shankar , Bangaru Shiva SHANKAR,R.R.DIST.,AND50

Sondi Veeraiah Vs The Special Deputy Collector

Mr.Mohammed Qasim, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kadira Ravinder Vs State of Telangana and 6 others