Partly allowed

R. Sunitha v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022WP/28375/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the delay in allotting a Zone VII posting to the petitioner on spouse grounds. It directed the Regional Deputy Director to consider the pending application within four weeks while adhering to the Chief Secretary's General Order No. 1655. The miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Regional Deputy Director, Department of Ayush, Warangal to consider the pending spouse appointment application and pass appropriate orders within four weeks in accordance with the General

R. Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE^{SEVENTHDAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶5

WRIT PETITI NNO 28375^{0F 202}

¶6

Between:

¶7

R. Sunitha, Wio.T Rajesh, Aged^{42 yearc, Working as Pharmacist (Unani)'} PHC, Jogulamba^{GadwalDistrict}

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State^{of Telangana, Rep by its Principal S-9cretaryto Government'} IVedical^{Health and r#iiv rfu.itri. Depaitment,,Telangana State secretartat'} iink*5 bnrrin,^{t-oweriarit< Bund Road' Hvderabad'}

¶11

The^{Commissioner' Department of Ayush' Hyderabad'}

¶12

The^{Regional Deputy Director' Department of Ayush' Warangal' Warangal} District

¶13

"'RESP.NDENTS

¶14

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in tn" l*'O"n filedtherewith'the High Courtmay be} pleased^{to issue a wrlt o'OJr or alrection especially one in the natureof writ of} mandamus^{declaring that} a)^{r h ea ctionor the resPond e nt'fi} il})lflil"iffi ;'::':Tffliil District^{videproceedings *"..} ll''. I]^^..16 o f the^{constitution o lndia'} il;;;;""itrarv^{viotatins article14 and 16r} a nd^{d rs Po si ne of} b )^{D e c, a re that the,"r::,:J":".::::Tfi} H i "..] :,,"":: ::::: the^{applicationof the Peti}

¶15

IA N o: 1 OF^{20 22} PC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} Petition^{under Section151 C} ;;.il;^{;.t Hish court maY be Preased to} in the^{atfidavitfiled in supportol th}

¶16

direct the^{respondentsto considerand pass appropriateorders on the} / application filed^{by the petitionerdated 30'12 2021} '^{pending disposalof the Writ} Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU}

¶18

Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH& FAM'WELFARE} The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶19

llOVBl-h SItl .rt.S't't(tE K. t.AKSHNITtN

¶20

\ RI'T PtITI'I'IO\ \ 0.283 15 0F 2022

¶21

ott,\L oRI) t..R:

¶22

I leard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel lor the petitioner and learned Government lrieader fbr Services _ II appearing on beha ll o f' the rcspondents.

¶23

l.^-l hc p.cscnl writ petition is rled to decrare the actioir o1. the .csp..clcnts i. aliottir-rg trre petirio.er hc'rein to Jogularnrra - Gacl*,,ar l)ist'ict. I icle procec.dirrgs \o.I I\l I)l: /,1 ZI., I.,l I/\R 0011. dtrtc_d 19.ll,l0l I as illcgal and aiso to dcclar.e tlte action tr1-the r.espondr_nts i' ,Lrr e o.:itL-lirrrl 'rlrrl rlisp.sirg .t'thc application cratcd i0. r2.l0r i ls illcgrl.

¶24

j Pcrusal of the rccolcl wouicl rcveal that vide proceedings ciatcd 29.12.202 I, respondenr No.i has airotred the petitioner herein ro Zone VII - Jogulanrba.^{'l'hereafter,} the petitioner herein had submitte d arr application dated 30. l2.2O2l in a forrnar by duly enclosing a copy ol' Spousc Certificate [o respondenl No.2 hcrein requesting him to allot her Lo 7,onc Vl on spouse ground. Despitc receiving and

¶25

acknowledging^{the said applicatiorr'respondentNo'2 dicl rrot ilct Lrporl} lt -I'irerelbrc. the pres!-lrt \ l'lt lletllloll

¶26

On^{thc otherhand" leartlcclCor etl'tl't.lct.ttl)leedcrt'tr l Se'rr iccs}

¶27

ll. rvould^{subtr-tit that rcspondctlt \o lrr ill consicictrhc aPplicatiorr} subnritted bl^{the pctitjoner hcrcirr ot-t spoLlsc glc)tlr1d andpass} appropriate^{orders in accordancesith Ia*'}

¶28

In^{view of the abor"esaid submission'this \/rit l)etitiorr is} disposecl^{of directirrg resportdcnt No lto considerthe application} subrritted^{b}' the petitionerhe rein dateti 301 l l()l iarlcl lrass} appropriate^{ordersin accorclanceriith laullorrerct'rt is rnadecleltr'} that *hirc^{corlsicicrirr-sthe said ap;rlic.tion.rcsprrrrrc.r No ) shall l'ecp} intettt llnci^{ptllp()lt bcilirtcl rllc (-ireLrllll'} ln considcration^o1'the \letritr \o^{1655'SI'l-l l0l1-Stlltctl} instructions^{issuedv ide} 24.12.2021^{issued by the Chief Secretaryto Government relatirrgto} posting^{of employeesin newly allottedCadre underSpouseCategor'} Respondent^{No.2 shall complete the entire exerciscrvithina period01'} four^{(04) weeks from today'an<lcommunicatecopy of the order to the}

¶29

petitioner^herein.

¶30

l\ l. .l \ I' No:tt:]75 ol :021

¶31

As a scquel. the^{miscellaneouspetitions,il an-v,pendingin the'}

¶32

\i lit l)ctition shall stand^closccl

¶33

¶34

,TRUE COPY//

¶35

SD/.P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

(_+y

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Commissioner,^{Departmentof Ayush, Hyderabad'}

¶40

One CC to^{SRISRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶41

3, Two CCS to^{the GP for MediCaI, Health & FamilyWelfare, High Courtfor the} State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶42

Two C.D. Copies

¶43

One Spare^CoPY.

N/RC

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712022

CC TODAY

6E S:Aiq-
k
q
:)
a) I B JUL 2M2
O
* D-*o PAlC

ORDER

*,-

WP.No.28375 of²⁰²²

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

R. Sunitha v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sunitha v. The 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

P.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Parupelly Shekar Varma Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

Malothu Ramchander Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Uckoo Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Raja and another Vs The District Collector and 4 others

Gurram Rajitha Devi Vs The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education