Partly allowed

P. Prabhakar v. State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022WP/27645/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner W.P. filed challenging non-payment of yearly increments from reinstatement. Court directed the Director to dispose of a pending representation regarding revised pay scales within 60 days and dismissed the writ petition thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2021 within 60 days. Writ petition disposed of as no order as to costs.

P. Prabhakar Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶5

WRIT PETIT ION N O:27645 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

P Prabhakar, s/o Late p. chennaiah, Aged about 43 years, occ ; Record Assistant O/o Director of Medicat Education, S6tjof T. S, HVJ..,?iO"O, nlo b_a_+s A Hakimpet, Shaikpet, Totichowki, Hyderabad, f"ianlin".

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 State of Telanoana. Reo ,by^{its PrincipalSecretary,HM and FW(VC)} Department, Sicreiariai, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Director of Pubric Hearth and Famiry werfare, state of rerangana state, Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The Director of Medical Education, At Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired there;ith, tnu uiin'coiu;i';;y ;" pleased to issue an order or orders more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not adoing yearry increments to the. petitioners pay w.e.f from re-instatement dated i.e.,-0il06/i019 a; the same. is irregar, arbitrary, and unjust and consequenily direci tne responoents io p?y tl: petitioner sarary by adding yearry increments w.e.f dated. olro6t2org with all consequential benefits.

¶15

I.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition Under section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated T-[; illdlyl^{fited, in.supportof the p"iition, in" iigl., Court may b; p6;;j"} orrecl tne Hespondents to add yearly increments to the petitioners pay w.e.f. 0110612015 in view of his representation dated.14l1 2t2OZ1.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.G.RAVI MOHAN

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents : Gp FOR SERVICES - ll

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶21

W.P.NO. 27645 0F 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition has been liled by the petiticner seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not adding yearly increments to the petitioner,s pay with effect from re-instatement i.e., O1.06.2019 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner salary by adding yearly increments w.e.f 01.06.2019.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the .earned Government Pleader for Services-ll

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suspended from services vide suspension orders rlated 11.08.2016 on the basis of FIR registered against him on 09.08.2016. He further submits that the petitioner had made a representation to the 2nd respondent to review his suspension order and the said representation was considered by the lna respondent and accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into s;ervice in terms of G.O.Rt.No.292, dated 31.05.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that inspite of reinstatement, he has been paid monthly salary but not the learly^increments from the date of reinstatement i.e., t)1.06.2019. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondents

¶26

to dispose of^{the representation submittedby the petitioneron} 14.12.2}21seeking^{revised pay scales of 2Ol9 and 2O2l and for} payment of arrears^accordingiY'

¶27

Learned Government^{Pleader for Services-Il takes notice} and submits^{that the representationof the petitionerwill be} considered^{bY the authorities'}

¶28

Having^{regardto the above submissions'the respondent} No.2 is directed^{to disposeof the representation of the petitioner} d'aled,^{14.|2.2021 within a periodof 60 days from the date of} receipt^{of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the} petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly,^{this writ petitionis disposedof' There shall} be no order^{as to costs'}

¶30

T"Misceilaneouspetitions,ifany,pendinginthisWrit Petition,^{shal1 stand closed'}

¶31

ASSISTAN?D{-I$IIHI{ //TRUE coPY/t qt,

¶32

sEcTlOi'l^oFFICER

¶33

To .1. The principar secretary,.HM and^{FW (vc) Department, Secretariat, state of} , HFB?il?"?tJEieJ,ff,:"*h^{and Familywerrare,state orrerangana state'}

¶34

3 4 Tf"'dtTk;lgt"3,:f,yiSg$rf^{:,l.?'il5Jlilifu 1",'3,!'&T;ransanaat} 5 BIl"tt?S^{JRIIJ]^v, o'o, Advocate toPUCl} b Two CD^CoPies 7 One sPare^coPY S.A SB

HIGHI COURT

DATtiD:0510712022

ORDER

WP.No.27645 of 2022

1:1 7-e
|, [6 sir 202
* .J'

¶40

DISPOS.ING OF THE W.P

¶41

WITHOUT COSTS.

P. Prabhakar v. State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Prabhakar v. State of Telangana and 2 Others

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

K.Ravinder Reddy Vs The District Educational Officer

Dayakar Pabbu Vs The State of Telangana

D.Laxman Rao Vs Ch.Srinivasaraju

S. Bhaskar, And 17 Others Vs The Government of Telangana, And 4 Others

A.Venu Vs The State of Telangana

K.Bhagya Laxmi Vs The District Educational Officer