Allowed

Yerram Uttam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2022WP/16772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking reinstatement of a petitioner removed from service without a regular enquiry. The court set aside impugned orders and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits, noting the disciplinary authority may still take action in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated as Junior Assistant with all consequential benefits; impugned orders set aside. Disciplinary authority directed to take action in accordance with law.

Yerram Uttam Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE: OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABI\D (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

N/ONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND T\ryENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16772 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yerram Uttam, S/o. Yerram Manoj, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Junior Assistant (removed) O/o. Dtt/ and HO, Jangaon District.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its. Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal Urban, Warangal. (RR 2 and 3 C.T. is amended as per Court Order dated 16-11-2022 in LA.No.2 of 2022)

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Orders vide Rc. No. 8420/VC-E|2O21 dated 1710112022 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the appeal flled by the petitioner against the order vide Rc.No.E11632612O20 dated 0210412021 issued by the Respondent no-3 Removing the petitioner from service without conducting regular enquiry, in terms of Rule 20 or CCA Rules is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of^power, vindictive attitude and contrary to CCA Rules, violative of principles of natural^justice and violation of Art. 14, 16 and 309 of Constitution of lndia and consequently set the same and to hold that the petitioner herein is entitled for reinstatement into service as Junior Assistant in 3rd respondent with all Consequential benefits such as seniority, back wages and other allied benefits etc., in the interest of^justice.

¶16

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition un, er Section 151 CPC^praying that in tre li'.urlstzlnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLrl n ay be pleased to direct the respon, ents to reinstate the petitioner into servi:,) :ry suspending the operation of the⁽ rders vide Rc.No.842O|VC-E|2OZ1 daled ' 7 lO112'022 issued by the 2nd respond€ rt rejecting the appeal filed by the petiticrer ag;linst the order vide Rc. No.E 1/6i 2612020 daled O2lO4l2O21 assued by tho tlespondent no-3, pending disposal rf the main writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the F )titioner : SRl.T.D.PAN| KUMAR

¶19

Counsel for the Re ipondents : GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND I:AMILY WELFARE

¶20

The Court made I re following ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.16772 OF 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 12902 ot 2027 and the same is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Services-ll.

¶25

In view of the same and following the order passed in the above writ petition, the writ pctition is allowed in terms thereof, setting aside the impugned Order vide Rc. No.8420/VC -E l2o2l dated 17 .1 .2022 issued by the 2"d respondent and further the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benehts. However, it is open for the disciplinary authority to take action, in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/.M.SANTHI^VARDHANI JOINT REGISTRAR

¶27

Note : That the^{causetitle of Respondent-Nos 2 & 3 in the} |i,ilia:ji"ir^{irndalzoziin wp.t't o.1G772ot 2022 arc corrected} ;il;;;A;;" p"tltt" orders of Hon'ble^{court dated} 16-11-2022 '- ' ' i-hi; imenaea in^l.A.No.2 order shall^{ot 2022'} substitute the earlier order

¶28

Wnicn rris^{ilreadybeen dispatched 27-05-2022'}

¶29

Sd/-p.pADMANABHA^REDDy ASSISTANT^REGIS

¶30

//TRUE COPY//

¶31

SECTIO OFFICER

¶32

To 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Medicaland HealthDepartment Secretariat'State of} Telanoana at Hvderabad

¶33

1. il5'DY;;U;i'Pr;rt-^{neartn and Familv welfare'Telansana'Hvderabad'} 3. +ffi^{"Dllirfi'N,l-;iJai ana Hearii officer,'wa'ansalU.rban'.warangal'.}

¶34

+;"ie:'i;'eir-onr',rroicArHEALiueno-TnMTLYWELFARE'High c'Jrri"riitiL^{sutJofTelanganaat Hvderabad [oU-T]}

¶35

6ill Uc' tii snii.b.^{pnxt xUrr,lnn, A6vocate [oPUC]}

¶36

Two CD CoPies 7. One spare^coPY

G)Y'-Br.

HIGH COUR'

DATED:04lU 12022

16t1 t2022

AMENDED C RDER

WP.No.16771 of 2022

.!', a
'') I
N:
F
\8 .
tt t
<br>J !r'
<br>

¶44

ALLOWING^..HE WP

¶45

WITHOUT C0STS.

¶46

)nA- .vi
<br>

Yerram Uttam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yerram Uttam v. The State of Telangana

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

Shravanthi Dubba Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Dadi Odelu Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Parikipandla Thirupathi Vs The State of Telangana

A. Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Satya Goud Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Yadavalli Anjali , Anjamma and another Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others