Disposed

D.S.Rajendernath , v. The Central Administrative Tribunal

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WP/41034/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the pending original application expeditiously, noting that since the opposing respondent had retired, the petitioner's promotion case should be reviewed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Central Administrative Tribunal to dispose of O.A. No.21/693/2016 as expeditiously as possible.

D.S.Rajendernath , Vs The Central Administrative… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ANO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^RAJESHWARRAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:41034 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

D.S.Rajendernath , aged about 53^years S/o^{D. Shanker RaoOcc- Senior} Clerk^-Olo the Welfare Commissioner,^{Labour Welfare Organisation,} Government of lndia, Ministry of^{LabourandEmployment, Kendriya Sadan,} Hyderabad-500095.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Central Administrative Tribunal,^{Rep. by its Registrar, HACA Bhawan,} Opp. Public Garden HYDERABAD^{- 500004.}

¶13

Th; Union of lndia, Rep. by the Secretary,^{M/o Labour and Employment Govt.} of lndia, Shrama Shakthi Bhawan, Rafi Marg,^{New Delhi - 110 001.}

¶14

The Dirbctor General ,^(Labour Welfare)^{M/o Labour and Employment Govt. of} lndia, Jai Salmar House, Mansingh Road,^{New Delhi - 1 10 011}

¶15

The Welfare Commissioner, Labour^{Welfare Organisation, Government of} lndia, Ministry of Labour and Employment,^{Kendriya Sadan, Hyderabad-} 500095.

¶16

The National Commission for Schedule^{Castes,Rep. by its Secretary,} Laknavak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi^{- 110003}

¶17

The S6cretary, Dept. of^{Personnel and Training, NorthBlock, New Delhi - 110} 001 L

¶18

L. Ramana Murthy, aged about^{58 years, S/o Shri Siva Rao,HeadClerk-} cum-Accountant O7o thie Welfare Commissioner,Labour^{Welfare Organishtion,} Government of lndia, Ministry^{of LabourandEmployment, KendriyaSadan,} Hvderabad-500095'

¶19

...RE''.NDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more^{particularlyin the nature of} wRlT oF PROHIBITIoN by^{prohibitingthe central AdministrativeTribunal} Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad from^{adjudicatingthe o.ANo. 211693/2016filedon} its file by the 7th Respondent, whereby^{the proceedings of the Sth Respondent} ie., the National Commission^{for Schedule Castes dated- 05-07-2016 along with}

¶21

record of note of discu.. sions of lhe meeting^held on^{29-()6-20l6 was challenged} in disguise, for want cf iurisdiction under^{Central Adm nistratir,e --r'ibunals Act} 1985

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶23

Petition under Se ction 151 CPC^prayrng that in^the circutn-',tarces^statedin the affidavit filed in su rport of^{the petition,the High C,rurtnta} /^{be pleasedto} suspend the^proceeding s in O.A.No.^{21169312016pendinll befo'e the Respondent} No.1, the Hon'ble Central Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyder;lbadlSenctr, Hyderabad} pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petitiorter: SRl. T. KOTESWARA^RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 5: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KIJM,AR,} DY. SOLICITOR GENEITAL CIF INDIA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G. VENKATESHWARLU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI K.R.K.V. PRASAO

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI} AND

¶30

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.4lO34 OF 2018

¶32

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shauili)

¶33

This Writ Petition is hled aggrieved by the Interlocutory Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,^Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the CAT"),ⁱⁿ o.A.No.2l /693 /2016 dt.31. 10.2018.

¶34

Heard Sri T. Koteshwar Rao, Iearned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for rcspondent Nos. 1 to 5, Sri G. Vcnkateshwarlu, learned^Central Government Counscl for respondent No.6 and Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.7.

¶35

It has been contended by the petitioner that^when his^case was not considered for promotion to the^post of Head-Clerk-cumAccountant, he has approached the National Commission^for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes has issued a letter on 05.07.20 l6 based upon discussions held on 29.06.2016 and thereafter, the Government of India^had issued proceedings dt.l4.O7.2016 for implementing the

¶36

Ar(..1 & I|(N..1 \r l) No^.l I 0-.j.1 ,rl'10 I 8

¶37

)

¶38

proceedings dt.05.07.20 16 of^{National ComrrLissioIlor llcheduied} Castes. Aggrie,,cd^b-v thc^{issuallce ol Ie tter Lv t.he( jove rnme nt of} India dt. 14.O7 .'2O16,^{respondent No.7 has 2*pproa(h':d tl.re CAT by} frling O.A. No.Z1 1693120 16 and^{the CAT v'as pleascclto grant} interim order on^{3 1. 10.2018. Aggrievedb,r' t re samc. he present} Writ Petition is hled.

¶39

Learned^rlounsel for the^{petitiollerhaci contendr:rl that the} order passed try the^{CAT u'as suspended bv this CouLrt and in} spite of the s ame, the case^{of the petit oner itas not been} considered.

¶40

Learned Counscl for thc pctitioner^hz d^{furtlr<:r ,:ontended} that respondent No.7^{has rctiredfrom service on attainirg the age} of superannue tion. Since^{respondentNo.7 hits rt:tiredfrom} service, the cas c of the^{petitioncrcan be cons;idered lor promotion} to the post of Head-Clerk-cum^{Accountant itr terms cf the letter} issued by the crovernment^{of lndra dt.14.o7.2016.}

¶41

Learned Clounscl appearing for reriponc(lrlt \o.7^had contended tha t the National Commission firr^{Sc h,rdlLledCastes} could not havt: passed such an order and^{.-espon<lent No.7 has}

aaF-' ,/ Eiii /

ji.-. /

AKS,J & RRN,J WP No.4 1034 oF 20 I 8

¶47

rightly approached the CAT by liling O.A. No.693 of 2016 and the CAT was^pleased to grant interim orders in favour of respondent No.7 and the O.A. is still^pending. Let, the Writ Petition be disposed of directing the^CAT to^dispose of the^{O.A. as} early as possible, as admittedly, respondent No.7 hled O.A. in the year 2016, which is^{almosteightyears back and because of pendency} of the Writ Petition, the^{CAT is not in a position to} take up^the case for hearing.

¶48

7 . This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective^parties, is of the considered view that the^present Writ Petition is filed against interlocutory order^passed by the^CAT in O.A. No.21/693/2016 dt.31.10.2018 and^keeping the^{Writ Petition pending before} this Court will not serve any Purpose.

¶49

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the CAT to dispose of O.A. No.2I/693/2016^{as expeditiously as possible.} Since respondent^{No.7has retiredfromservice, the case of the} petitioner can be considered for^promotion to the post of^Head- Clerk-cum-Accountant.^{The eligibility of respondentNo.7 will be}

¶50

¶51

.^ I..S.J & IiRN.J W⁾ N,r.] 103:l ot 20 I {i

¶52

adjudicated in the O.A. pending before the CAT d,:pe nding upon

¶53

the merits of tlre case. There shall be no orcler as t r c,rsts

¶54

As a seqrre[, miscellaneous applications penrlirrg, it any, in

¶55

this Writ Petiti,tn, shall stand closed.

¶56

SD/. MOHD. SAhIT.ULLAH ANSARI ASSIS'I-P,}tr REGISTRAR //TRUE COpy// -ft) SiECTION OFFICER

¶57

To, 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative^{Tribunal, HAIIABtra',var, Opp. Public} Garden Hyderab:rd - 500004.

¶58

The Secr6tary,Urrion of^{lndia,M/o Labour and Enrplo-ynrerlt(;ovt. of lndia,} Shrama Shak'thi []hawan, Rafi Marg,^{New Delhi- 1'10 001.}

¶59

The Director General ,^{(LabourWelfare) M/o Labourand Emllo)/rnentGovt. of} lndia, Jai Salmar House, firlansingh^{Road, New Delhi - 110 0 l1}

¶60

The Welfare Co nmissioner, Labour^{WelfareOrgzinisatii)n, Cc'vernmentof} lndia, tr/inistry of Labour and Employment,^{Kencriya l)aCar, Hyderabad-} 500095.

¶61

The Secretary, N ltional Commission for Schedule^{Castes, L.rknayak Bhawan,} Khan Market, Ne,v Delhi^{- 110} 003

¶62

The Secretary, D:pt. of Personnel^{and Training, NorthBlock, Nrlw Delhi - 110} 001

¶63

One CC to SRl. f. KOTESWARA^{RAO, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to SRl.^,3. VENKATESHWARLU,^Advocate [OPUC

¶65

One CC to SRl. l(R.K.V.^{PRASAD,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶66

10.One CC to SRl.^(iADl PRAVEEN KUMAR,^{DEPUTYSOI.IOITOR GENERAL} oF rNDrA [OPU()

¶67

11.Two CD Copies

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:121091i'.023

ORDER

WP.No.41034 c,f 2018

ri>
JJ
l
I ,I
cr )
l<br>, a)
._ l,
i

¶76

DISPOSING OF'THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COST S

¶77

t l<br>-,
\t<br>

D.S.Rajendernath , v. The Central Administrative Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.S.Rajendernath , v. The Central Administrative Tribunal

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

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. Vs Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Dr. Uzma Viquar Vs The Director

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others Vs G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano

D Sandhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana

S. Venu Vs T. Raghavender Reddy

The Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited Vs Sabbu Rajamouli