Three writ petitions challenging the non-engagement of retrenched workers under a special package were collectively disposed. The High Court observed that the benefits had already been paid to the petitioners, rendering the relief sought infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
[31671
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTHDAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICE A. ABHISHEKREDDY
WRIT PETITION N os.26729,28090 and 28091 of2007
WRIT PETITION NO: 26729 OF2007
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed therewith,the High Court maybe pleased to issue a writ, order or directionmore particularlyone in the natureof writ of mandamus declaringthe action of the respondents in not fulfillingthe settlement under the specialPackage while disbursing the packageamountin terms of section 1B(1)and 25(F) of lndustrial DisputesAct for the retrench workers in terms of thenotice dated 30-8-2005 of the 2nd respondentand not considering the case of thepetitionersfor engaging their servicesby the 2nd and 3rd respondents for thework in the Projectson hand pending the outcome of the writ Appeal 718 of2O02 onthe file of this Hon'ble Court.
I
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 34900 0F 2007)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider lhe case of the petitioners for engaging their services at the work in the projects on hand pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: GP FOR HOUSING
Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI D. RANGANATHA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 28090 OF 2007
Between:
ANO
...RE''.NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not fulfilling the setflement under the speciar Package whire disbursing the package amount in terms of section 18(1) and 25(F) of rndustriar Disputes Act for the retrench workers in terms of the notice dated 30-g-2005 0f the 2nd respondent and not considering the case of the petitioners for engaging their services by the 2nd respondent for the
3
work in the Projects on handpending the outcome of the WritAppeal No.1147 of 2OO1 and WASR no.16201 of 2003 on the file of thisHon'ble Court.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 36719 OF 20071
Petition under Section'l 51 CPCpraying thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider thecaseof the petitionersfor engaging their services at the work in the Projects on hand atHyderabadCentral Division pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOUSING
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO:28091 OF 2OO7
Between:
AND
/
,+
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the aclion of the respondents in not fulfilling the settlement under the special package without taking into consideration of the revised pay scales of the year 2003 while disbursing the package amount in terms of and Section 18(1) and 25 (F) of lndustrial Disputes Act for the retrenched workers in terms of the notice dated 30-8-2005 of the 2nd respondent and not considering the case of the Petitioners for engaging their services by the 2nd Respondent for the work in the Projects on hand.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 36720 0F 2007)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the case of the Petitioners for engaging their services at the work in the projects on hand at Central, North, South and Western Division at Hyderabad District pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOUSING
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
I
THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
W.P. Nos.26729 28O9O and28O91 of2OO7
COMMON ORDER:
Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, has stated that the subject matter of the present writ petitions has become infructuous, as the authorities concerned have already paid the benefits under special package to the petitioners.
Having regard to the above- made submission, the
present writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any shall also stand
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/.I. NAGALAKS DEPUW REGI
//TRUE COPY//
SEGTIO FFICER
To,
I I
6
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 010312023
COMMON ORDER
W.P.Nos.26729,28090 and 28091 of 20O7
a--=--
[- SiAI
C
t 1 srl ?tt3
I
L).9
rl''
or:s F ^.1i
'.i:
.:Jj
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
vt4
i
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petitions seeking direction to engage petitioners for retrenchment packages are maintainable.
Whether subject matter of writ petitions became infructuous due to payment of benefits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Chandra Bhuyan and others
Government of Andhra Pradesh
A.P. Housing Board
Executive Engineer (Housing)
A. Abhishek Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
