Disposed

M. Sekhar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Aug 2023WP/16281/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this order, the High Court of Telangana concluded the writ petition filed by a town planning officer regarding disciplinary proceedings and denial of promotion. The court accepted a submission that no further orders were required due to an existing interim order, and closed the petition without costs or substantive adjudication in this order. The text is not unreadable but was procedurally term

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

M. Sekhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16281 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Sekhar Reddy, S/o. M.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 54 years, working as Assistant Director of Town Planning, O/o, R.D.D.T.P., Warangal.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat,T.S. Hyderabad

¶13

The Director, Town and Country PIanning, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prbying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1"t respondent in initiating and continuing disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an alfeged incident pertaining to the year 2009-2012 vide charge memo issued in G.O.Rt.No.315 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Vig ll(l)) Department dated 03-05-2016 and further depriving promotion to the^post of Deputy Director on the said ground, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated by the Government for completion of enquiries in G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 0'l-1 1-2008 and in Rule 20 of TSCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion as Deputy Director, Town Planning with all consequential benefits in the interest of^justice.

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that ir the t;irr;u ntsta nces stated in the affidavit filed n support of the^petition, the High Courl rnav be^pleased to direct the responderts to consider the case of the^{petilioner fc,r promotion} to the post of Deputy Dire,Ior, Town Planning without referr:nce 1o the charge memo issued by the^{'1't respondentin} G.O.Rt.No.315 Municipral Ad.ninis.ration & Urban Development^(Vig.ll l)) Department dated 03-05-201(i for arr a leged incident pertaining to lhe 200)-2012.

¶20

Counsel for the Petilioner: SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN

¶21

Counsel for the Resl,ondents: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBA|I t)EV

¶22

The Court made the^ibllowing: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.16281 OF 2018

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, informed this Court that in rriew of the interim order granted by this Court on 01.05.2018 no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petiticin.

¶27

In view of the above submission, the writ petition is

¶28

closed. There shal1 be no order as to costs.

¶29

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶30

stand closed.

¶31

//TRUE^COPY//

¶32

AR SD/-C.PRAVEEN ASSISTANT^R SECTION FICER \

¶33

To.'"'',. On" CC to SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN' Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two ccs^{to GP FoRr;';i'A;-r;r'i'unanNoEv' Hign court for the State of} Telangana^{at Hyderabad [OUT]}

¶34

Two^{CD CoPies}

BSR

/ I

HIGH COURI'

DATED: 1010312023

zA -l-ATA
,4
/zi+
( ,
r$ t f1zffi

¶42

ORDER

¶43

WP.No.16281 of 2018

¶44

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶45

WITHOUT CCISTS

¶46

%-o

M. Sekhar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sekhar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kuchoor Ramulamma Vs Sri Kishan Kumar Prajapat and Another

Smt.Kuchoor Ramulamma and Another Vs Kishan Kumar Prajapat and Another

G.Subhan Vs Sheshinder Singh

A.Chandramma Vs The State of Telangana

Dev Narayan and Another, Vs M/S. Rajneesh Transport Pvt. Ltd., and Another

M.Shoba Vs The State of Telangana