Disposed

G.Jagan Mohan Rao, v. The Project Director, D.W.M.a., Mgnregs Adilabad.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023WP/2198/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner paid the demanded recovery amount. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appointment as a Technical Assistant under NREGA and directed the respondents to consider the representation within two months without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation for appointment. Respondents directed to consider it within two months.

G.Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs The Project Director… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13303I

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.^{SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2198 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

G.Jagan Mohan Rao,, S/o G-Rama Rao, Aged about 53^{years, OccEx-} iein"niiar Assistant,^nll.o.u. n . E.G S., Mandamarri^{lvlandal, oo,,ro.:331?,13cN!*}

¶9

AND

¶10

The Project Director, D.W.M.A.,^{MGNREGS Adilabad.,}

¶11

The Corirmissioner, I/GNREGS,^{DwakraBhavan,, Lower Tank Bund,} Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

The Secretary, MGNREGS Government^{of Telangana, Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶13

4- The State of Telangana rep. by^{its PrincipalSecretirry,, PanchayatRaj and} Rural Developmenf Department,^{AndhraPradeshSecretariat Buildings'} HYderabad'

¶14

...RESP.NDENT'

¶15

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to lssue an appropriate a writ, order or direction^{moreparticularlyone in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus by^{declaringthe action of the respondentin} issuing Notice No. H/184/DVC/Mandamarri-312012,^{dated 4-8-2014 issuedby the} 1st respondent and its consequential^{proceedingsNo.424lCRD/92lSPM} (DM)2014, dated 23-3-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent^{by holdingthesameas} illegal, arbitrary, without^{jurisdiction, mlafide, violative of the FundamentalRights} cuaranteed to the^petitioner under^{the Constitution of lndia, and directthe} respondents to continue the^{petitioneras Tech. Assistant under NREG Schemein} his respective place ie., Mandamarri^{Mandal with all consequentialand incidental} benefits attached to the^post

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'16{WPMP. NO:2784^{OF 2016} ) Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased} suspend the operation of the^{in issuing Notice No. H/ 184/DVC/N/landamarri-}

¶17

312012, dated 4-8-20'14 issued by the 1st respondent and its consequential proceedings No.424/CRD/92ISPM (DM)2014, dated 23-32015 issued by the 2nd respondent by duly directing the respondents to continue the petitroner in service in the Mandamarri lrlandal of Adilabad District forthwith as Tech. Assistant under NREG Scheme, and direct the respondents not to recovery the amounts of Rs.540961 from the petitioner

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶19

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SMT. R. PADMA REKHA

¶20

Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR SERVICES

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.2198 of 2OL6

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief:

¶26

". . .. . .to bsue an appropiate utit, order or direction more particalarly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus bg declaing the action of the respondent in issuing Nottce No.H/ 184/ DVC/ Mandamarri-3/2o12 dated 04.08.2014 i-ssued bg the lil respondent and its consequential prcceedings No.424/ CRD/ 92/ SPM (DM)2014 dated 23.03.2015 issued bA the 2",t respondent by hotding the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, malafrde, uiolatiue of the Fundamental Rights Guaronteed to the petitioner under tLLe Constitution of India and dtrect the respondents to continue the petitioner as Tech. Assislanl under NREG Scheme in his respectiue place i.e., Mandamarri Mandal utith all consequential and incidental benefits attacLed to the post ond to pass....."

¶27

It appears from record that on 28.01.2016 while admitting this Writ Petition this Court in W.P.M.P.No.2784 of 2016 passed the following Order:

¶28

"With rekrence to recouery in tLrc impugned order, petitioner is permitted to. make paAment of amount demanded in 10 equitable installments commencing from^{Marclg2O16. Petitionershall pay each} installment before 1Ah of euery montlg on failing to paA onA one of the installments uithin the time gronted, it i.s open to tle competent authoitg to take coerciue steps against the petitioner. In the euent petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the amount shatl be refunded to him."

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during thc pendency of this Writ petition, in pursuarce of interim Order dated 28.O1.2016 in W.p.M.p.N<t.2784 of 2016, the petitioner paid entire amount as directed by this Court. Lezrrned counsel fcr the petitioner requested this Court to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent authorities seeking appointment to the post of Technical Assistant as per NREG Scheme anrl to direct the respondents to consider the same in view ol payment made by tl-re petitioner and to pass appropriate Orders.

¶30

04 . Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services-l appearing for r.espondent No.1 a_nd S arrd learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondcnts Nos.2 and 3 submits that the respondents will consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate Orders, in accordance with law ald requested this Court to grant reasonable time.

¶31

Having considered the submissions of respective pa_rties, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the

¶32

¶33

petitioner to submit representation to the respondents seeking appointment to the post of Technical Assistant as per NRtrG Scheme arld the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate Orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this Order copy.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶37

any, shall stand closeri.

¶38

To,

¶39

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASStsrANr RE-ctsTR^R //TRUE COPYII a--SECTION OFFICER

¶40

1iffi^{jlff#+::,;:Jt#"r#3stsflr:B?*si::is,,verrankBund}

¶41

' ,1ffi"";3:f^{ry, MGNREGS Governmentof Tetangana.,} Secretariar, 4 E 6 7 8. eg#$;t,,ti***n,rnti:,p"";.:;" MBC GJP

¶42

HIGH COURT

¶43

DATED: 0110912023

¶44

.. .... -.<br>. 11-. -' , '1j a. :.- ' \ /.1:..
t.'
/:1:
i--
i.f
I ._) 2 6 ili ::?l
./
ORDER

¶45

WP.No.2198 of 2016

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

G.Jagan Mohan Rao, v. The Project Director, D.W.M.a., Mgnregs Adilabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Jagan Mohan Rao, v. The Project Director, D.W.M.a., Mgnregs Adilabad.

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

D.Sanjay Vs S.Sreenivasa Chary, The District Educational Officer

V.Tirupathaiah Vs Sri Rajender Singh

G. Shamshuddin, Vs The Depot Manager

T.Sampath, Vs The District Employment officer, Warangal District

L.K. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

B. v. Narayana Son of Laxmaiah, Vs The Industrial Tribunal at Warangal, Represented by its