Dismissed

Zilla Banjara Sangam and Tudum Debba (Tac), v. A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC2 Dec 2022WP/273/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a tribal contract labour association challenging the rejection of additional allowances and T&P charges was dismissed by the High Court without costs as infructuous, having become barred by the pendency of the matter in a court of law.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are also dismissed. No order as to costs.

Zilla Banjara Sangam and Tudum Debba… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

IN THE^{HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

',;,i['ll'5r'r'o",rtJinl$L?l"??'#3t*

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PET'ITION O:273 OF²⁰¹⁰

¶7

Between:

¶8

zilla Banjara sangam^{& Tudum Debba(TAq), Re9.d:. No.9040/2002,Paloncha'} Khammam oirtii.Y-i-ii-''lsbiris,^.C t'its^{deneril Secretary, ChapaYarraiah} Dora.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

' A.P. Power^{Generation corporation Ltd.,Vidyut soudha, Khairtabad,} HyOeraOad-82,^{rep. by its Managing Director'}

¶12

The Director^{(HR), AP Genco Ltd., Vidyut soudha, Hyderabad-82,}

¶13

The chief^{Engineer (o & M), KothagudemThermalPowerstation - V Stage'} Paloncha, Khammam^(D'T)

¶14

The superintending^{Engineer.(civil),KothagudemThermal Power station - V} Stage, Paloncha,^{Khamham (D'T)}

¶15

...RESPOt\iDENTS

¶16

The address for^{the serviceof notices q!g-p.r9.c9ss.etc.on the abovenamed} oetitioner is that ot'irieiiiorns"t^{rvrls CHaIIDRAIAHSUNKARA, M'U.qAYKIRAN'} ffiil;i;t, Ft"iiG^{)br, G,thiAplartments, rilakNasar, Hyderabad-44'}

¶17

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue any^{appropriatewrit, order or direction particularlyone in the} nature of Writ of^{Mandamus declaringthe action of the 2nd respondents rejecting} for paying the^{S.S.R Rates, 20% AdditionalAllowance and 10% T & P Charges} to the V.T.D.A^{Tribal Contract Labour, on par with the General ContractLabour'} vide Lr No^{D(HR) CGM(HR)LO/PO(SI) tJPO 78glwPNO 11820t2009dt 29-09-} 2009 by rejecting^{the petitioner Sangam'. repesentations dated 19'02'2009'} 01.05.2009^{and 26 05.2009, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14,16 &21} of the Constitution^{of lndia and consequently set aside the LR NO}

¶18

D(HR)/CGM(HR)/LO^{PO(SI)/JPO/789WP NO 11B2OI2OO9dt 29-09-200eand} direct the respondents^{to pay the ssRRates, 20% Additional Allowance and 10%} T & P Charges to^{the VTDA Tribal Contract Labour'}

¶19

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: Sri. Chandraiah Sunkara}

¶20

Counsel for^{the Respondents: Sri. R. Pavan Reddy (SC for TS GENCO, NON} SERVICE)

¶21

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.273 of 20 1O

¶24

ORDER:-

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and no further orders required in this matter, thereby, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶26

Recording the above said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶27

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶28

pending, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

ASSI /TRUE^COPY//

¶30

to",. one cc^{to sri' chandraiah Sunkara' Advocate toPucl} 2. One^{CC to Sri' R' Pavan Reddy (SC for TS GENCO' NON SERVICE)} toPUCl

¶31

Two^{CD CoPies}

TJ BS tssh

<br>

HIGH COURT

DATED: Ail1212022

ORDER

WP.No.273 ot 2A10

S TAIC
{ V\E
1 3 IAN ?$fi
(.)
,,, t
.t
Ol.:r; c

¶39

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS.

¶40

^G,g>

¶41

u'ql

Zilla Banjara Sangam and Tudum Debba (Tac), v. A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zilla Banjara Sangam and Tudum Debba (Tac), v. A.P. Power Generation Corporation 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

Rudraram Prameela Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.T.Mahender Reddy Vs The Joint Collector

Sri T. Mahender Reddy Vs The Joint Collector

M/s. Krishna Woven Sacks, Pvt. Ltd., Vs A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/s. Sanghi Spinners India Ltd. Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Rapolu Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others