Dismissed

A.Venu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Jul 2022WP/5734/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court for Telangana disposed of a writ petition seeking reinstatement into service as Constable TSSPF. The petitioner claimed illegal removal an d refused reinstatement. The Court held the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner was not an employee of the State of Telangana, having been removed from the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh service before state bifurcation. Accordingly, t

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.

A.Venu Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

I TUESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY^{OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE P.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5734^{OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

A.Venu, S/o Mallaiah, aged^{41 years, Occ. E-x-Conslable-2304,TSSPF' H.No'} 1-10-11E5t1, Sainagai^{C-olony,Kushaiguda, ECIL, Medchal MalkgajgiriDist}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep^{by its Principal Secretary Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director General, Telanagana^{State Special Protection Force, Buddha} Bhavan, 4th Floor, Secunderabad.

¶13

The lnspector General,^{Telanagana State Special Protection Force, Head} Quarter at Buddha^{Bhavan, Secunderabad}

¶14

The Commandant, Telanagana^{State Special Protection Force, Head Quarter} at Secunderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus declaring the^{action of the respondents hereinin removingthe} petitioner from serice from the^post of^{constableISSPF vide lmpugned} i1c.No.AS/pR/gi(RZySPFi2gO9-12,^{dated 11-5-2012by the 1"t respondent and in} confirmed in the appeal vide^{Rc.No.A3/PR/o1(RZ)/SPF12009-12, dated.26-10-} 2012 and revision in Rc.No.A3iPR/01(RZ)/SPF/2009-14,^{dated6-1-2014 and} finally in rejecting the mercy^{petitioner videMemo.No.462(p)/Ser.lll/A112019,} aated ZS-A-dOZO by Govt. as highly^{illegal, arbitrary and discrimination and alsoin} violation of ccA Rules 20 and^{21 and consequentially,this Honblecourtmay be} pleased to set aside the impugned 11-5-2012,^{all its consequential ordersdated} 26-10-2012, dated 6-1-2014^{and dated 25-8-2020 by declaringthat the petitioner} herein is entitled for reinstatement^{into seryice as Constable TSSPFwith all} consequential benefits.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

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 direct the 1st repsondent to re-consider the petitioner representation dated 22-2-2O21 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. M R TAGORE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. M.V. RAMA RAO (SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR HOME)

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE^{P.MADHAVIDEVI} W.P.NO. 5734 0F 2021

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition has^{been filed by the petitionerseeking} a writ of mandamus declaring^{the action of the respondents in} removing the petitioner from^{service from the post of Constable} TSSPF uide impugned order in^{Rc.No.A5/PR/01(RZ)/SPF/} 2OOg-12, dated 11.O5.2O12,^{passedby the 1't respondentand} the same being confirmed in^{appealand revision and also in} rejecting the mercy^{petitionuider.r,.err:lo dated 25.O8.2O20by the} Government, as illegal and^arbitrary.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for^{the petitionerand the} learned Special Government^{Pleaderfor Home.}

¶28

Learned counsel .^{for the petitioner submits that the} petitioner was removed from service^{uide ordersdated} 11.05.2012 passed by the^{1"t respondentfor unauthorized} absence of 359 days and that^{appeal as well as revision} preferred by the petitioner challenging^{the said removalorders} have been dismissed. The^{mercypetitionwasalso rejectedon} the ground that it is not^{feasibie for considerationas per the} existing Ru1es. The^{petitioner ciaimsthat he madeanother} representation dated 22.02.2021^{by citing the instances of}

¶29

¶30

PMD,J w.P.No.5734 of 2021

¶31

similar candidates whose cases were considered and who were reinstated into service, and he also enclosed copies of the concerned G.Os., along with his representation and, therefore, in this Writ Petition, the petitioner requests that his representation may be directed to be considered by the Govern m ent.

¶32

Learned Special Government pleader for Home fi1ed a detailed counter aflidavit and submitted that as the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 2Ol2 and his appeal as u.ell as the revision petition have also been dismissed, in the final aliocation of the employees on bifurcation of the state, the petitioner was not ailocated to either of the two States as he was not on the rolls at the time of bifurcation of the State into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Learned Special Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner w.as on the rolls of SPF (Special Protection Force) of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and the Presidential Order does not apply to the petitioner. it is further submitted that the petitioner was working at Tirupathi at the time of his removal from service and the orders in appeal as weil as revision petition have also been dismissed before bifurcation of the State into Andhra pradesh and Telangana. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner never worked in Telangana and, therefore, this

¶33

¶34

PMD,J W.P.No.5734 of 2021

¶35

¶36

writ petition is not maintainable^{inthis Court. He also} submitted that mercy petition is not a^{statutory remedy and} therefore the rejection of mercy^{petition by the Government of} Telangana does not^give rise to any^{cause of action to be} agigated before this Court.

¶37

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner furthersubmits that} since the mercy^petition of^{the petitionerwas rejected not on the} ground of jurisdiction, but it was on^{the ground of non-} feasibility of consideration^{as per the existing Rules, the writ} petition is maintainable.

¶38

Having regard to tJle rival contentions^{and material on} record, this Court is of the opinion^{that the writ petition is not} maintainable in the State of^{Telanganaas the petitioner is not} an employee of the State of^{Telanganaand the Presidential} Order is not applicable to^{the petitioner, as pointedout by the} learned Government Pleader,^{and also since the petitioner was} removed from the service of the^{erstwhileGovernment of Andhra} Pradesh. In view thereof, the writ^{petition is liable to be} dismissed as not maintainable.

¶39

7 Accordingly, this writ petition^{is dismissed. Thereshall be} no order as to costs.

¶40

PMD,l W.P.No.57i4 of 2O21

¶41

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶43

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/- K. SAILE DEPUTY REGI

¶45

//TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶46

To, '1. One CC to Sri. M R Tagore, Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to SPL^{GPfor Home, HighCourt for the State of Telangana [OUTj}

¶48

Two CD CoPies.

¶49

One Spare^CoPY

PM
GJP+

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510712022

ORDER

WP.No.5734 of 2021

13 tr[i ffi12

Dismissing the WP without costs.

¶59

,0 Trt
6

A.Venu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Venu 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

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

K.Bhagya Laxmi Vs The District Educational Officer

P. Prabhakar Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others