Dismissed

Md., Hmwsandsb., Hyderabad. v. P Manohar Babu, Hyderabad and Anr.

Telangana HC11 Oct 2022WP/16171/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal's order granting promotion to a senior employee. The Court held that since the respondent was likely to retire during the petition's pendency, the agrievement was unjustified. No interference with the Tribunal's order was found necessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal's order dated 25.01.2012 stands unaffected.

Md., Hmwsandsb., Hyderabad. Vs P Manohar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16171 OF 2012

¶7

Between:

¶8

Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, rep. by its Managing Director, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶9

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. P.Manohar Babu, S/o Pullaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Chief General Manager (P.A), Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500004, Rlo.8-2-26813114/4, Arora Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar.

¶13

(Cause title is amended as per C.O, dated l 3-06-1 2 in W.P.M.P.No.22304112)

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Arlicle 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, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 25.01 .2012 passed in 0.A.No.3144 ot 2011 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and quash the same.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 20825 OF 2012)

¶17

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

,i ,{ {

j Ii

I { i

{

suspend the order of the^A. P.Administratlve^{Tribunal,dl. 25.O1.2012 passed in} O.A.NO 3144 of 2011

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.SUDHAKAR^{REDDY (SC FOR HMWSSB)}

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :^{SRIC.SRINIVASBABA.}

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

I \

I ,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE NAMAVARAPU RAJESH]TAR RAO

¶37

W.P.Ncr.16171 OI; 2012

¶38

ORDER:^(Pu Sri Hon'ble Sri.lustice Abhinand Ktnnr Shavili)

¶39

\X/hen the matter is taken up for hearing, it is noticed that bcfore the^'Iribunal, lcarncd Standing Counsel appearing for Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supplv and Sewerage Board had cofltendcd that there is a vacancv of Director (Operations) and the case of thc 1* respondent can be considercd ilr the said v^ca.ncy. Based on the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, O.A.No.3144 of 201.1. rvas disposed of or 25.01..201.2 directing the petitioncrs he rcin to consider thc case of the 1" respondent for promotion to thc post o[ Director (Operations) in the existing vacancy and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. Agyieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶40

While admitting the writ petition on 13.06.2012, this Court uideWPMP No.20825 of 2012 grantcd interim suspension.

I I

ti { {

,\ pcrusal of thc record discloses that the 1., respondent

¶46

was aged about 53 vcars in the year 2011 and now, he must havc rerired from the service on attaining thc age of superannuation during pendency of the present writ petition. Wc are not able to understand horv thc petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2012 passed bv the Tribunai in O.A.No.3144 of 2011. N{ore so, d.rc^'fribunal has disposed o[ the said O.A. ar the instance of thc petitioners thcmselves. Thercfore, this Court is

¶47

not inclined to intcrfcre witl-r thc ordcr passed by the'Iribunal.

¶48

Accordingly, tl.re Writ Petition is dismisscd. No cosrs.

¶49

Miscellaneous pctitions, il any, pending shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/.K.SREERAMA MURTY ASSISTANT,REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEc?BN oFFrcER

¶51

To, .1. One CC to SRI T.SUDHAKAR REDDY (SC FOR HMWSSB) [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI C.SRINIVAS^BABAAdvocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BSK BS

gSK

I {iI

,I d 1'l i

: )'; 4 I ;

jI IA

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111012022

\2; Nc<br>+-.
/*
..-.]
,.J-J
()
CJ r-
Hts (-l-
g: ([!!
G'

¶60

ORDER

¶61

W.P.No.16171 ot 2012

¶62

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

- ta9" $ef-

Md., Hmwsandsb., Hyderabad. v. P Manohar Babu, Hyderabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md., Hmwsandsb., Hyderabad. v. P Manohar Babu, Hyderabad and Anr.

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

Additional Commissioner ( Personnel and Vigilance) Vs Sri. P.Ajay Kumar

Vs

B. Motilal, R.R.Dist. Vs the Chief Secy., Revenue - Excise Dept., Hyd. and 2 Othrs

Dr. a. Sadullah Khan Vs The Government of A.P. Rep. by its

Prl Secy to Govt Agriculture and Coop Dept, Hyd and 2 Others Vs S. Radha Krishna Murthy, Hyd and 2 Ot

B. Rajeshwar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh