Dismissed

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan rep by Commissioner, v. Mrs. Muneerunnisa Begum W/o S.A. M. Shultari

Telangana HC21 Jul 2022WP/2248/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by two retired teachers seeking to quash a Central Administrative Tribunal order. The Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for pay scale parity with non-defence teachers. The Court held not to interfere with the Tribunal's directive to consider the representation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs. The respondents are directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan rep by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{N. V. SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2248 OF²⁰⁰⁵

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan^{rep by Commissioner,,ln} stitutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh^{tVlarg,New Delhi,}

¶9

Kendriya Vidyalaya^{Bollaiam,, Ranga Reddy District, rep by} I rincipal 3. Dendriya^{Vid\1ala'1a-2rep by Princi[a|,,Golconda, Hyderabad} ...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

Mrs. Muneerunnisa Begum^{W/o S.A. M. Shultari,, Occ.PET.Kendriya} Vidvalava. Bollaram, Ranqa^{Reddy District}

¶12

K.i. Bh'agawan S/o K.^{Krishna Rab, PET., Kendriya VidyalayaNo.2} Golconda, Hyderabad

¶13

...REspoNDENrs

¶14

Petition under Article 226^{of lhe Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction, more^{particularly in the natureof writ of} certiorari to call for the records^{in o.A. No. 520t2001dt 26-08-20040n the file of} the central Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyderabad BenchHyderabadand declare} the findings of the Tribunal^{which went againstthe petitioners herein as arbtirary} and illegal and set aside the same.

¶15

l.A. NO:2 o F 200S(WPMP. NO:^{3023 OF 200s}

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated}

¶17

in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased} suspend the operation^{of the orders in O.A. No. 52012001dt 26-08-2004on the} file of the Central Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad}

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2.00 5(WVMP. NO:9 29 0F 2005)

¶19

Between:

¶20

Mrs. Muneerunnisa Begum Wo S.A. M. Shultari,, Occ.PET. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bollaram, Ranga Reddy District

¶21

K.C. Bhagawan S/o K. Krishna Rao, PET., Kendriya^{VldyalayaNo.2} Golconda' Hyderabad

¶22

....pETrroNERS/REspoNDENTs

¶23

AND

¶24

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan rep by Commissioner,, lnstitutional^Area, Shahee,l Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi,

¶25

Kendriy;r Vidyalaya Bollaram,, Ranga Reddy District,^{rep by Principal}

¶26

.) Dendriya Yidyataya-2 rep by Principal,, Golconda,. Hl383,339*.r,rrlloNERS

¶27

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 vacate the interim orders dated 10-02-2005 in WPMP No. 3023/2005 in writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B. NARASIMHA SARMA

¶29

Counsel for Respondents: SRI M. SURENDER RAO

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI} AND

¶32

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶33

WRIT PETITIO N No.2248^{of 2OO5}

¶34

Order:@

¶35

This writ^petition is^{filed seeking 'Writ of Certiorari'} to call for the^{records in OA No.520 of 2001, dated 26'08'2004} on the file of the^{Central AdministrativeTribunal,Hyderabad} Bench, Hyderabad^{and declarethe findingsof the Tribunal which} went against the^{petitioners herein as arbitrary and illegal and} quash the same.

¶36

Heard Sri B.Narasimha^{Sarma, learnedcounselthe} petitioners and Sri M.surender^{Rao, learned counselfor the} respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for^{the petitioners contended that the} respondents were^{initiallyappointed as Junior Physical Education} Teacher in^{Kendra Vidyala Sangathan in the year 1970 and} respondents have submitted^{representationseeking parity of} Pay Scales on^{par with ex-Non Defence Teachers' The counsel for} the^{petitioners contendedthat respondents cannotclaim parity of} Pay Scales on^par with^{persons who were not even appointedby}

¶38

¶39

¶40

Kendra',/idyala Sangathan. The Central Government has deputed respondents as Non-Government teachers in the Kendra Vidyala Sangathan under a scheme, and the said scheme was abandoned and the respondents could not have sought any pay parity on par with Non-Defence teachers who were deputed under a Def€nce Scheme of Central Government. When the case of the respondents was not considered for extending pay parity on par with Non-Defence teachers, the respondenE have filed OA No.520 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short^.the Tribunal), and the Tribunal vide order dated 26.08.2004 has disposed of the OA No.520 of 2001 and directed the petitioners to consider the representation of the respondents.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents are presently 7O and 74 years of age and Tribunal has only directed to consider the representation submitted by the respondents, therefore appropriate orders be passed in the.writ petition, directing the petitioners to consider the representation submitted by the respondents and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶42

l-earned counsel for the petitioners further contended that Tribunal has erred in giving such direction to the petitioners and

¶43

the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the^respondents cannot compare themselves with ex-Non^{Defence Teachers.} Therefore appropriate orders be^passed in this,writ^petitionby setting aside the order^passed by the^{Tribunal in OA No.520of} 2001, dated 26.08.2004 and allow^{the writ petition.}

¶44

This Court having considered the rival^{submission madeby} the parties is of considered view that the^{Tribunal has only} directed to consider the^{representationoF the respondents.} Therefore this Couft is not inclined to^{interfere with the order} passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Writ^petition is dismissed, and the^petitioners shall^{consider the representationsubmittedby} the respondents in terms of the direction^{glven by the Tribunalin} accordance with law.

¶45

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^{pending in this writ petition}

¶46

shall stand closed. No costs.

¶47

¶48

SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// k/

¶49

SECTION^OiFICER

¶50

'"'l Bffi BB B Bl',t1lxil#1',3'[3*:]ij6?83i"1 3. Two^{CD CoPies} 4- One^{Spare uoPY} MBC \ SW *yy'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2110712022

ra.
?3 SrtP ?,W
I

ORDER

WP.No.2248 of 2005

DISMISSING THE WRIT^PETITION

¶58

WITHOUT COSTS

¶59

€ff"-

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan rep by Commissioner, v. Mrs. Muneerunnisa Begum W/o S.A. M. Shultari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan rep by Commissioner, v. Mrs. Muneerunnisa Begum W/o S.A. M. Shultari

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

P. Kanaka Mohan and Another, Vs Finance Dept., (Works and Projects) Rep. by Prl. Sec. and 3 Ors.

V.Lakshminarayana Vs B.Daniel

P. Narasimha Rao, Vs Sri K. Dayanand

Smt. Kamakshmamma, Mahabubnagar District Vs the District Medical and Health Officer and 2 Others

Smt.v.Shailaja, Vs The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education

Dr. G. Venkat Reddy, Mahabubnagar Dist. Vs the Govt. of a.P., Health, Medical and Family and 9 Others