Dismissed

V. Venkateshwarlu v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Telangana HC20 Oct 2023WP/22927/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On 20.10.2023, the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, coram Smt. Justice P. Madhavi Devi, dismissed Writ Petition No. 22927 of 2023 as withdrawn. The petitioner sought a declaration that the failure of respondents to fix the minimum time scale of pay was illegal. The court permitted the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition as and when required. There was no order as to costs.

V. Venkateshwarlu Vs The Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^321s1

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

FRIDAY, THE^{TWENTIETHDAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶7

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO: 22927 0F 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

V. Venkateshwarlu,^{S/o LatNanaiahAged aboutSO^YearsOcc scavenger'R/o H} No. 235, Adarsha^{Nrgil iot'il]'b'nxj*.nJiir,-BhadradriKothagudernDistrict} Telangana State

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 TheCommissionerofEndowments'TheStateofTelangana,TilakRoad, Boggulakunta,^HYderabad.

¶13

2 sri seetharamachandra^{Swamy Vari Devasthanam, .Repby its Executive} 5il;r'tii;;;n^{jr"r, ehrJii'iri'KothsudemDistrict Telansana State}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article 226 ol the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an^{appropriatewrit, order or direction more particularly onein} thenatureofWritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondentsinnot paying the minimum^{time scale of pay to the petitioner is illegal'arbitrary'} discriminatory^{and contraryto the judgmentof the Supreme Court reportedin} State of^{Punjab and Others Vs JagjitSinghand Others (AlR 1994 SC 1598 ) and} consequentlydirecttherespondentstofixtheminimumtimescaleofpaytothe petitionerfromthedateofhisinitialappointmentandextendalltheconsequential benefits

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC prayingr that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to consider the case of the petitioner for extension of minimum time scale of^pay to the petitioner.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.H.SATISH hIUMAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.22927 of 2o23

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner seeks permission of this} Court to withdraw the^present Writ^{Petition and has also fileda letter} d,ated 17.O9.2023 to the Registrar^{(Judicial) statingas under:}

¶25

"The aboue said urit^petition filed^{bg mg client namelg} V.Venkateshutarlu, S/ o.Late Nanaiah^{in W.P-No.22927 of 2O23there} is urgencg in tLLe cose.^TLre respondents^{in not poging the minimum} time scale to paA the^{petitioner is iltegalarbitrarydisciminatoryand} controry to the^judgment of the Supreme^{Court reported in State oi} Punjab c:nd others u. Jagiit^{Slngh and others AIR 7994 SC} 7598. The petitioner requested^{me to uLithdraw the abouesaid urit} petition. Hence, I request the olfice^{to postthe aboue toit petition} for uithdratral in tomorrout's list and^{liberfu to} file fresh^{tttit petition as} and tuhen required."

¶26

Permission is accorded.

¶27

Accordingly, the Writ^{Petitionis dismissedas withdrawn with} liberty as prayed for. There^{shallbe no order as to costs.}

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{pending in this Writ Petition,} shall stand closed.

¶29

SD/-P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA rss'GiatiiiEciCiCAii / //TRUECOPY// SECTION OFFICER-- -^.4__ -__

¶30

To, 1. One CC to SRI C.H.SATISH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶31

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies. BSK BS "\f>/

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011012023

ORDER

WP.No.22927 ot 2023

1 ,{E ST,q}
o'-
^
,.J 0 3 r{0lJ zfiIl c
t
S) p/^,T C!r,
-"::.
-":ij-;-

¶39

DISMISSING THE WRIT^PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶40

// \ -q

V. Venkateshwarlu v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Venkateshwarlu v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Nehru Chawan Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sri Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mohammad Gousoddin Vs The State of Telangana

Kurisenga Adithya Vs The State of Telangana

Talluri Thiruna Hari Babu Vs The State of Telengana

K.Satyanarayana Prasad Vs The State of Telangana