Dismissed

G. Sai Kumar, Nalgonda District v. Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Telangana HC11 Oct 2023WP/3963/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dispute services claim by G. Sai Kumar who sought to continue employment as Sub Station Operator contending dismissal of services was arbitrary and illegal. Court held disputed factual issues regarding alleged unauthorized conduct could not be tried in writ jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

G. Sai Kumar, Nalgonda District Vs Chairman and Md… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 3963 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Sai Kumar, S/o G. Pothuloora Chary, 26^{years, Rl/o Kakkireni(Village)'} Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

A.P. Central Power Distribution Co.^{Ltd., Corporate Office, at Mint Compound,} Hyderabad - 63, rep. by its Chairman and^{Managing Director.}

¶12

Superintending Engineer^{(Operations),} Nalgonda,^{Opp.APSRTC BusDepot,} APCPDCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The Divisional Engineer^{(Electrical), APCPDCL, RamannapetDivision,} Nalgonda District.

¶14

Asst. Engineer (Electrical), APCPDCL, Ramannapet,^{RamannapetDivision,} Nalgonda District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one^{particularlyone in} the nature writ of mandamus declaring the^{action of the Respondents in not} continuing the Petitioner as Sub Station Operator at^{33/1 1 KV Sub Station,} lskilla, under the control of 3'd and^4th Respondents,^{with a viewto engage new} candidate of the choice of the 3'd Respondent,^{as arbitrary, illegal and violativeof} Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of^{lndia andconsequentlydirectthe} Respondents to continue the Petitioner^{as Sub Station Operator at 33111 KV Sub} Station, lskilla, Nalgonda District.

¶17

I.A.NO:1 OF 2014(WVMP. NO:^'129 I OF 2014)

¶18

Between

¶19

A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Corporate Office, at Mint Compound, Hyderabad - 63, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶20

Superintending Engineer (Operations), Nalgonda, Opp. APSRTC Bus Depot, APCPDCL, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶21

The Divisional Engineer (Electrical), APCPDCL, Ramannapet Division, Nalgonda District.

¶22

Asst. Engineer (Electrical), APCPDCL, Ramannapet, Ramannapet Division, Nalgonda District.

¶23

.....PETITIONERSRESPONDENTS

¶24

AND

¶25

G. Sai Kumar, S/o G. Pothuloora Chary, 26 years, Rl/o Kakkireni^(Village), Ramannapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶26

.....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶27

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 vacate the interim orders daled 12.02.2O1 4^passed in WPMP No.4B76 of 2014 in WP No.3963 ol 2014.

¶28

|.A.NO: 2OF 2O14(W PMP. NO: 4876 OF 2014)

¶29

Petition under Section 15'1 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 Petitioner as Sub Station Operator at 33111 KV Sub Station, Vlarriguda, Nalgonda District,^pending the above writ petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO)

¶32

The Court made the following ORDER

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.3963 of 2Ol4

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not continuing the services of the petitioner as SubStation Operator at 33/ 11 KV Sub Station, Iskilla, under the control of respondents 3 and 4.

¶37

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his services were engaged for manning and maintenance of 33/ 1I KV Sub stations, he discharged the duties as that of a regular Junior Line Man and he was con[inued till 30.1 1.2013 through M/s.Boddupally Srinivas Electrical Works, Nalgonda. Thereaf[er, his services were disengaged stating that again his services will bc engaged after sometime through the same contractor or another contractor. But, the respondents failed to do so. Aggrieved by thc same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

¶39

A counter has been filed by the respondents, mainly, stating that the respondents have not engaged the services of the petitioner but the contractor has engaged his services for manning and maintenalce of 33/ i 1 KV sub-station and the petitioner reported to have indulged in unauthorized activities such as entrusting the duties of Operator to a private person and making groups among the Sub-Station Operators. It is lurther stated that without taking any permission either from the respondents or the Contractor, the petitioner has managed to hand over his duties to an unauthorized and unqualified person to discharge the

¶40

\ \z--

¶41

¶42

functions of Operator and thereby tried to calise damzrqe to the 33/ 11 KV sub-station equipment, etc. In such circumstances .nd also for the reason known to the petitioner, he went absconding and the respondents have specifically denied that the petitioner u.as replaced.

¶43

4\ Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents

¶44

A perusal of the averments made 1n the counter afhdavit raise serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gore into by this court in a writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the cor-rstitution of India. Hence, tliis court is not incrined to entertain the rvrit petition and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits.

¶45

Accordingly, thc Writ Petition is dismisscd leaving it open to the petitioner to approach proper Forum for redressal o[ his grievance, still if any.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No

¶47

costs.

¶48

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTAAT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// sec&Polr oFFrcER

¶49

To 1. One CC to Sri Chandraiah Sunkara,^Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri R.Vinod Reddy^{(SCFORTSTRANSCO)} [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

SA GJP w

HIGH COURT

DATED:1111012023

ORDER

WP.No.3963 of 2014

f1 r' T E
o
l\t
q \ !., N' t\ f
o l
lj
(. ()
Lltr{;P A1

DISMISSING THE W.P

WITIIOUT COSTS.

E \I<sup>a

G. Sai Kumar, Nalgonda District v. Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

G. Sai Kumar, Nalgonda District v. Chairman and Md, Apcpdcl, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Marke Poloneyes, Nalgonda District Vs Prl Secy, Higher Education Dept, Hyderabad and Another

N. Raja Ram Vs The Apsrtc

Dr.G.Hanumandlu, Vs The Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences

J. Sammaiah S/o. Rajam Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

A.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late Krishna Murthy, aged 37 years, Vs The Apgenco rep. by its

A.K.Reddy, Vs The Chairman cum Presiding Officer