Disposed

A.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, aged 37 years, v. The Apgenco rep. by its

Telangana HC11 Oct 2023WP/10428/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a two-line order closing a writ petition filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC. Upon receiving the undisputed submission that the respondents absorbed the petitioners' services during the pendency of the main petition, the High Court closed the writ and miscellaneous petitions without costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Writ Petition and Miscellaneous Petitions without costs.

A.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, aged 37… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

f Et FI

¶2

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 10428 OF 2O14

¶9

Between:

¶10

A.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Krishna tt/urthy, aged 37 years,

¶11

L.Kondaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, aged 44 years,

¶12

Kommu Ramu, S/o. Badhraiah, aged 29 years,

¶13

G.Jyothi, W/o. Rambabu, aged 28 years,

¶14

T.Durga, S/o.Pullaiah, aged 35 years,

¶15

B.Anjali, W/o. Pool Singh, aged 35 years,

¶16

N.Raja, S/o. Late Ramesh, aged 36 years,

¶17

D.Vazramma, W/o. Late lVluthaiah, aged 42 years,

¶18

T.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Hussain, aged 29 years,

¶19

'l0.A.Laxmi Narayana, S/o. A.lVuthaiah, aged 37 years,

¶20

1'l .Ivl.Shoba Rani, Wo. Guravaiah, aged 33 years,

¶21

K.Kesavulu, S/o. Nagulu, aged 45 years,

¶22

(All are for the purpose of service etc., rs that of A.Venkateswarlu, Rl/o. H.No.20-3-275, Indiranagar Colony, New Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District).

¶23

...PETITIONERS

¶24

AND

¶25

The APGENCO rep. by its, lvlanaging Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.

¶26

The Chief General lvlanager (HR) APGENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. J. The Chief Engineer, O&M, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station (KTPS), APGENCO, Paloncha, Khammam District.

¶27

4 K.Prasad, Contractor, H. No.20-2-26 1, lndiranagar Coliny, Paloncha, Khammam Disttrict.

¶28

5 K.john Peter, Contractor, Old Paloncha, Khammam District.

¶29

6 Kuncham Sarvan Kumar, Contractor,Paloncha lrilandal, Khammam Disttrict.

¶30

7 Itrl/s Sri Laxmi Tribal Labour Contract Co-p. Society Ltd Represented. By its President Sri B.shankar, Karakavagu, Paloncha, Khammam Disttrict..

¶31

¶32

t I I I I I

¶33

8 Bhukya Sakkubai, Civil Contractor, Pathaslraram Village pandurangapuram, Paloncha, Khammam Disttrict.

¶34

I M/s.Divya Trabal Labour Contrac_t Co-op.society Ltd,Represented by its Presrdent,Paloncha, Khammam Disttrict.

¶35

P.Manmadha Rao, Contractor, H.No.17-215 Bollorigudem, Panlocha, Khammam Disttrict.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one rn the nature of wrrt of mandamus declaring the impugnecl action of the respondents in proceeding to dis-engage services of the pe.rtioners while there are works in other areas i.e., LIV-colony, 'A' and 'C' co onjes etc. in K.T.p.S inspite of continuous service rendered by the petitioners for g to^.12 years as highly illegal, arbrtrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Ctnstitution of lndia.

¶38

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WP MP. NO:13095 OF 2014.)

¶39

Petrtion under Section 151 cPC prayinr; that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the servic,:s of the petitioners on the same terms and conditions as on today in works or sweeping and scavenging, water supply etc. in l.[VI-colony, A-colony, c-corony and other areas pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G V SHIVAJI

¶41

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SURYANARAYANA, REPRESENTING FOR MS. V. UMA DE:VI

¶42

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶43

¶44

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEPULLAKARTHIK} UIRIT PETI^{TIONNo. 1042a of 2Ol4}

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

This writ^{Petition is filed by the pctitio|rcrs beingaggrieved by the} action of^{thcrcspollcients indiscrlgagingtheirservices inthe} respondent^Organization

¶47

2l When lhc matter is^{laken up for hcaring'Sri Suryanarayana'} Ms. V. Uma^{Dcvi, lcarncdStanding} learncd^counsel, representlng Counsel^{for the respondents, submits that during thc pendencl'of the} havc arbsorberl^{the sen'ices of all the} Writ Pctition,^{the respondents} petitioners^{as Artisans}

¶48

TheabovcsaidsubmissroniSnotdisputcdbythelearnedcounsel for the Petltloners

¶49

4J ln vierv of^{the above made submission'the WriL i']ctition is closed}

¶50

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending' i[ any' shall stand closed} No

¶51

costs

¶52

sD/-K.AMIUAJI ASSISTANT REGISTAAR / //TRUE COPY// {1. /

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To, 1. One CC to^{Sri G} V. Shivaii. Advocate IOPUCI 2. One CC^{to ltrls. V} Uma Devi,^sC toPucl 3. Two CD CoPies TJ BS ctlL

F I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111012023

ORDER

...:;i9 s rA
(-
c-i
)
[1 lti]\l:'l
I
),,

¶60

WP.No.10428 ot 2014

¶61

CLOSING THE WRIT PETTTION

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶63

@ruoru,u

A.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, aged 37 years, v. The Apgenco rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, aged 37 years, v. The Apgenco rep. by its

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

Dr.Marke Poloneyes, Nalgonda District Vs Prl Secy, Higher Education Dept, Hyderabad and Another

N. Raja Ram Vs The Apsrtc

Dr.G.Hanumandlu, Vs The Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences

J. Sammaiah S/o. Rajam Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

G. Sai Kumar, Nalgonda District Vs Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and 3 Others

A.K.Reddy, Vs The Chairman cum Presiding Officer