Disposed

Imran Hussain, Nizamabad Dist. v. Ts.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Telangana HC26 Sept 2023WP/3360/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a driver seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was dismissed. The High Court directed the respondent corporations to consider the petitioner's representation submitted on 28-11-2016 and pass appropriate orders within two months without adjudicating on the merits of the case or the issue of money recovery.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Imran Hussain, Nizamabad Dist. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEJ. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION No : 3360^{OF 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

lmran Hussain, s/o.Late Shaik^{Mahamood Hussain, aged 34 years, occ :.Driverwith} nii" eri"J i; nrc, Ryo^{1-76, NuthpallvVillage, Nandipet Mandal, Nizamabad} District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telangana State Road^{Transport Corporation' ManagingDirector,} Musheerabad HYderabad.

¶12

The Regional Manager,^{Telangana State RoadTransport' Corporation,} Adilabad Region, Adilabad^District.

¶13

The Depot Manager,^{Telangana StateRoad Transport, Corporation, Bhainsa} Depot, Adilabad District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{Direction, more particularlyonein} the nature of writ of Mandamus,^{to declare the actionof the respondentNos. 2} and 3 herein in considering the^{case of the petitioner for his appointment on} compassionate^grounds in terms^{of G.O.Ms.No.2 dt- 5'1-2013 by takingback the} amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and inspite^{of the written representationdl. 28-11'2016} followed by^personal visits, as being^{illegal, arbitrary and unjust.}

¶16

|.A.NO:1 OF 2017^(WPMP. NO:399^{8 0F 2017)}

¶17

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in suppott^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} directing the respondents^{herein to consider the case of petitioner for his}

¶18

tr/

¶19

appointment on compassionate grounds by taking back the amount of Rs.1,00,0001 interms of the orders passed in W.P.No.21743 of 2O14 dt.B-B-2014 pursuant to the representation dt.28-1 1-2016.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI c.RAJESH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI A.SRINIVAS REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

, )

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶24

Writ Petition No. 3 360 of 2OL7

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is fiIed seeking the following

¶27

prayer:-

¶28

'?o issue an order, direction or turit more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandomus to declare the action of the respondent Nos. 2 qnd 3 herein in consicleing the cc.se of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2, dt 05.01.2013 bg taking back the (lmount of Rs.1,O0,0OO/- and inspite oJ the uitien representation dt.28.11.2016 followed bg personal ulsirs as being illegal, arbitrary cnd unjust."

¶29

Heard Sri G. Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Corporation.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.ll.2016 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 requesting them to provide appointment on compassionate grounds by accepting the arnount which was received by the petitioner arrd the respondents have not considered the saicl representation till date

I I

;il'r

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Corporation submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28. 11.2076 by giving a reasonatrle time and pass appropriate order in accordance with law

¶35

Having considered the rival submission s made

¶36

by the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit and proper to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation submitted by^. the pt.'titioner dated 28.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

¶38

costs.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if an5,', shall

¶40

stand closed.

¶41

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAO ASSISTANT REGlSTRAR //TRUE COPYII jr

¶42

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Managing Director, Musheerabad Hvderabacl

¶45

The Regional Manaoer. Telangana State Road Transport. Corporation, Adilabad Region. Ad-itabad Dis-trict.

¶46

The Depot Manaqer. Telangana State Road Transport, Corporation, Bhainsa Depot, Aditabad District.

¶47

4 One CC to Sri G.Rajesh, Advocate IOptJCr

¶48

65 Two one CD CC Copies to Sri A.Srinivas .\zReddy (SC FOR TSRTC) tOpUCl

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610912023

ORDER

WP.No.3360 of 2017

I }+e iTA) A
t" o
A
.) ) 1t
1) ,l
t-) 0 6 0[12U4
-.. /
.\ -./.\Q::,', .'

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶56

*51D t
&

Imran Hussain, Nizamabad Dist. v. Ts.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Hussain, Nizamabad Dist. v. Ts.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

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. Rohini, Nirmal Vs the State of Telangana and 2 Others

Sameena, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

K.Vykunta Chary Vs Special Chief Secy.

K. Nagi Reddy S/o K. Bal Reddy, Vs The Director of State Audit Government of Telangana

MD Moulana, Vikarabad Dist Vs Mpdo, Vikarabad Dist and 4 Others

Kondanna Vs The Depot Manager