Dismissed

Telangana Municipal and Gram Panchayat Parishudhya v. Principal Secretary to Government of Telangana State

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023WP/20529/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging failure to extend revised pay scale benefits to society members. Court observed that the cause of action no longer survives against respondents, ruling the petition infructuous and dismissing it without costs.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous without costs.

What the court decided

Telangana Municipal and Gram Panchayat… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20529 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Telangana Municipal and Gram Panchayat Parishudhya Karmeeka Sangliam, A society Registered vide Reg No. 8-1603 and^{Having office at} H.No.648/28, Raju Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad^{- 42} being^{represented by} its General Secreiary Sri. T.Narasaiah, S/o T.Narasaiah, aged about 54^Yrs.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Principal Secretary to Government of Telanganq State,^Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dept., Secretariat^Buildings, Hyderabad - 500022.

¶12

2, The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,^TankBund Road, Hyderabad - 500004.

¶13

The Zonal Commissioner, West Zone, Sherilingampalli,^G.H.M.C., Hyderabad.

¶14

Dy.Commissioner, Circle - 14, GHMC,^{Kukatpalli, Hyderabad - 500072.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more parlicularly one in^{nature of Writ} of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{Respondentsin not extendingthe} benefits of revised^pay scale of 2O15^issued by^{G.O. Ms. No 25 Finance} Department, dated 1810312015 to the^{membersof the petitioner's society whose} list is filed as ExP2 , is illegal, arbitrary^{and violativeof principlesof natural} justice and Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the Respondents to extend^{the revised pay scale benefits of 2015 issued} vide G.O. Ms. No.25 Finance^{Department, dated 18/03/2015 to the eligible} members of the^petitioners society together^{with arrears of paytill date}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017^{(WPMP.NO251630F 20171}

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the Highcourt maybe pleased to} direct the respondents^{herein to consider the representation dated09/05/2016,} pending adjudication on the main writ^petition-

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶20

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to} direct the respondent^No. t^{herein totake action onLetter No'} 142017tB1ILWSICHMCI2O17t27O^{dated 27.09-2017addressedbythe} Respondent No.2 herein soon

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI B. SATYA SAI KAMESHWAR}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FORSERVICES-I}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 to 4: SRI T' CHANDRASHEKARRAO}

¶24

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 20529 OF 2OL7

¶27

ORDER

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri B. Sarya Sai Kameshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in this writ petition does not survive and a request is made to close the writ petition.

¶29

Recording the said submission, this writ petition is

¶30

dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶32

petition, shall stand closed.

¶33

¶34

SD/.MOHD SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR /ffRUE cOPY/t cfi SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To, '1. One CC to Sri B. Satya Sai Kameshwar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri T. Chahdrashekar Rao,^{SC for GHMC[OPUC]} 3. Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High^{Court for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶36

Two CD Copies TJ BS y*/-t\

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112023

ORDER

WP.No.2O529 of²⁰¹⁷

STAr€
{ 92
(
q zo
?-ul
NS<br>oo ?.1
{t
i
I D E5 P A1 C

¶42

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶43

AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶44

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

-{
^-(
$

Telangana Municipal and Gram Panchayat Parishudhya v. Principal Secretary to Government of Telangana State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Telangana Municipal and Gram Panchayat Parishudhya v. Principal Secretary to Government of Telangana State

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

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Karimnagar Dist Vs Mamidi Bumaiah, Karimnagar Dist and 2 Others

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs K Sathish Reddy, Mahabubnagar Dist and Anr.

United India Ins Co. Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Green Wood High School, Warangal Dist and 2 Others

T Sultana and 5 Others, Vs Tspsc., Rep. by Secy., Hyd., and Another

Kommu Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Madanu Albeth Vs Tsspdcltd., Rep. by Md., Chairman, and 3 Others