Dismissed

K.Pavan Kumar.R.R.Dist. v. Secty.,Union of INDIA.N.DELHI.AND4 Others.

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023WP/23616/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Service Tribunal case concerning an applicant's request for regularization of service denied by Respondents, the High Court, upon the continued non-appearance of the Petitioner's counsel despite summons issued, dismissed the Writ Petition and the connected Civil Application under Section 151 CPC for non-prosecution without costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition No. 23616 of 2002 and Civil Application Pending Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed without costs.

K.Pavan Kumar.R.R.Dist. Vs Secty.,Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TULSP4Y] THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY IHREE'-''

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETI TION NO: 23616 oF 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

I iSlitr ??;[rt"il?fl !^grfi :i fl y:orto",,^{2 5 vea rs occ:Lab} Attenda nt

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

' S:lTr?t"'l"f seretary, Ministry or Derence, B Wins, ^['#ffi,??1",'rB'rrts

¶12

1. Defence Labs Educatior K;";h;;il;; i;"dE:"b'r,fl sociertv' Represented bv its chairman, f

¶13

Defence Labs Education society'Represented by its secretary,

¶14

Kanchanbagh, HvaerrojX

¶15

'Hy#1ffiil.,.3ii{il"il:,',SgXffi "d,?iJ.J"T,..,:f ,R"Si",}i#i}..,?:;:;;i*

¶16

Defence Labs School, Vignyan Kancha, RCl, lmarat, Hyderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances srated in ttre- arioavii-riil i;;;;ith, the High courr may be pleased to issue a Writ of frfanOarrs o, ;il'il;, appropriate writ order or direction decraring the imougned action or tne rl"lponoerts in not considering my service for regurarisations and seeking i" iiri th.'.;r" agarn by fresh serection as ittegat arbitrary and viotative of prin&prl, of'nJttiilr ;rrti"".

¶19

t.A. NO:10F 2002tWPMP. NO :29629 OF 20021

¶20

Petition under Section .151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suoport of the peiitio;, in" iign court may be preased to direct the Respondents ri,it to i"-r5"^{',irv'.l,ir'.".} as Lab Attendant pending disposal of the above Writ petition ,no glrni ;;';h", retief or reliefs.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 4t WMP. NO: 1028 OF 2004)

¶22

Between:

¶23

'l . Defence, Labr Educatiorral Socie(y, Represented by rts Jl,ainnan. Kanchanba,lh Hyderabad

¶24

Defence l-aos:clucational Socrety, Represented by its Sec;r:tary. Kanchanbagh Hyderabad

¶25

Vidyalaya Mar agement^(lommittee, Defence Labs Schocl RCl, Fence Labs Educatioral Sr cietY, Represented by its Secretary, RCl,^t/ir:1nyan Kancha, lmarat, Hyder. oad

¶26

Defence [-abs ichool. Viqnyan Kancha, RCl, lmarat, Hyd:r,tbad

¶27

...PETITIONERS/RESiF,ON DENTS 2 TO 5

¶28

AND

¶29

'l . Union_Of lnoia Represented by its Seretary, Minisky of D:ft-.nc,: B.Wing, Sena Bhavan, ,lew Delhi-'1 10001.

¶30

(R-1 is not ne( essary to this Petition)

¶31

...RESPON DEN'ITPETITIONER

¶32

K.Pavan. Sro. K.Sampath Kumar, Aged aboul 27 years C,cc. Lab Attendant H.No.1-2tr Ch; ncapet R R.District Htd..79

¶33

¶34

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶35

Petition undr3r Soction 151 CPC praying that in the circr_ mstances stated in the affidavit f lecl ir support lf the petition, the High Court r ay tre pleased to vacate the interim orc -.rs granted on 30-1-2003

¶36

Counsel for the Petiti )ner: SRl. N. V. ANANTHA KRTSHNA(NCIT pRESENT)

¶37

Counsel for the Resp )ndents: SRl. C. VANI REDDY

¶38

The Court made the f rllowing: ORDER

¶39

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶40

WRIT PETITION No.236 1,6 of 2002

¶41

ORDE R:

¶42

There was no representation on behalf of the rearned counser for the petitioner when this matter was taken up for hearing on 28.02.2023. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption'Tor Dismissal, on 14.03.202j.

¶43

Today, though the ma tter appears under the caption Tor Dismissal, there is no representation, yet agairy for the learned counsel for the petitioner when it is taken up for hearing.

¶44

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non_ prosecution.

¶45

Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶46

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶47

SD/. MOHD.SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE coPY// Gg, SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

One CC to Sri. N. V. Anantha Krishna, Advocate IoPUCI 2. One CC to Smt. C. Vani Reddy, Advocate [OpUC 1 3. Two CD Copies

¶50

TJ BSR

¶51

i l

¶52

I I I i i i i ) I I I

HIGH COUR'-

DATED: 14t0312023

ORDER

2.]:::.
'l -< - t'- '\'2 .', :' rA?l: ,..'^
/
ii, ,. 0 ilhY ?023

¶57

WP.No.2361l ot 2002

¶58

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶59

FOR NON.PF OSECUTION WITHOUT CO$TIS.

¶60

g0r v?

¶61

K.Pavan Kumar.R.R.Dist. v. Secty.,Union of INDIA.N.DELHI.AND4 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pavan Kumar.R.R.Dist. v. Secty.,Union of INDIA.N.DELHI.AND4 Others.

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

Abdul Hakeem,Nizamabad Dist Vs Apsrtc,Md,Hyd,and 2

Tippana Latchi Reddy Vs Ganesh

India Pentecostal Church of God represented by President Vs E.S.Yohan

Smt.B.Lakshmi Bai. Vs Secty.,S.a.P.Finance DEPT,HYD.AND4 Others

Ulli Sampath alias Vulli Sampath Vs Sri Prashnth Jeevan Patil,and another

T.L.Swamy, Nizamabad. Vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nizamabad and Another