Disposed

M/s.Godavary Security Services, v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023WP/33548/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal regarding a disposed writ petition concerning minimum wages and ex-serviceman privileges. The High Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation within 4 weeks, mandating the authority to decide within 8 weeks, before disposing of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation within 4 weeks; authority directed to decide within 8 weeks.

M/s.Godavary Security Services, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷¹

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 33548 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s.Godavary Security Services,, situated at Shop No.8, Plot No. 1 , Bhavani nagar, Kapra Mian Raod, Hyderabad. Rep by it's Prop. PSK rrnlli=r,r,on=*

¶9

AND

¶10

being an i Yavar

¶11

it's nal

¶12

The.lndane Bottling Plant lD Phase-lll Cherlapally,, Hyderabad. Rep by it's senior Plant Manger'

¶13

...REspoNDENTs

¶14

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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declare the inaction of the respondents in not implementing the DGR rules in minimum wages and settle the matter as per the DGR norms /while taking state minimum wages scale and discriminating to provide minimum wages along with all ex-serviceman privileges on par with house keeping contract employees entered agreement with them by the respondents on 14-9-2011 the said action is illegal arbitrary violating the natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to follow the DGR norms and rules by facilitating them to accord state minimum wages which ever higher and provide salaries on par with housekeeping contract labors as per the representation Dated. 9-10-2012 & 23-3-2013 from the date of providing services and consequently continue the petitioner until settled the matter.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2O1 P- NO:41740 OF 20131

¶16

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 to continue the writ petitioner in providing services until the settlement of payments as per the DGR norms.

¶17

NO: 2 OF 201 P 1741 F 13 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 respondents to made entire payments as per the DGR rules as per the implementing state minimum wages to the^petitioner security service e Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. L. NARASIMHA RAO

¶18

Counsel for Respondents: SRI B. MAYUR REDDY

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

-'!

tl tt

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTTCE^{A. ABI{ISHEKREDDY}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Questioning^{the action of the respondentsin not} implementing the Directorate General Resettlement^(DGR) Rules in minirnum wages and settle the rnatter as per the DGR norms/while taking state minimum wages scale and discriminating to provide minimurn wages along with all ex-servicemen privileges on par with housekeeping contract employees, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶26

Without going into the merils or demerits of the case, having regard to the {act that the contract issued to the petitioner has already expired, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the authority concerned for payment of salaries and allowances as per the DGR revised Rules, within a period ol' {bur (4) weeks fi'orn the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on such reprctentation being made, the

¶27

AAR, J W.P.No.33548 of 2013

¶28

¶29

authority concerned shall consider the same within a^period of

¶30

eight (8) weeks thereafter.-

¶31

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

Miscellaneous applications, if any^pending, shalI^stand

¶33

closed. There shall be no order^{as to costs}

¶34

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSIST

//TRUE COPY//

SE N OFFICER

To, 1. The Manager, lndian Oil Corporation^{Ltd.,, incorporated Under lndian Co.Act.} being an undertaking of GOVT of^{lndia and having it's Regd Office at G-9, ali} Yavar Jung marg, Bandra,(E), Mumbai.

¶39

The Regional Minager, Indidn^{Oil Corporation it's Regional OIf!.q,,The lndian} Oil Corflaration it's Regional Office^situated 9!^{HiqgV_a.tnaga.r,Hyde.rabad.}

¶40

The Senior Plant Maniger,^{lndane Bottling Plant lD Phase-lll Cherlapally,,} Hyderabad.

¶41

Ohe CC to Sri G L Narasimha Rao^Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

One CC to Sri B Mayur^{ReddyAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶43

Two CD Copies

MBC GJPA-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210312023

Ht S?/j,
..) j'
L:,i 0 4 APn 2U23 '.:
.i
*
ORDER

¶48

WP.No.33548 of 2013

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶50

WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

N\A-'w

M/s.Godavary Security Services, v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Godavary Security Services, v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Celebrity Hospitality, Hyd and 2 Others Vs the Second Appellate, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

K. George, Vs the Reg. Manager, Apsrtc, Nalgonda and Another

Nizam-Uz-Zafar Khan Vs the Union of India and 2 Others

Dr. Shoury Gollamari, Vs Union of India

G. Prashanth Reddy Vs S.Harish IAS and another

Ragula Raghu Kumar Vs T.V. R. Damodara Swamy