Disposed

Md Yusuf (E No.675024), v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Tampon Corporation

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023WP/5801/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the respondent corporation's suspension of the petitioner for illegal and arbitrary action, noting that the grievance was redressed through subsequent termination and reinstatement orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as the grievance was redressed by reinstatement following termination.

Md Yusuf (E No.675024), Vs The Andhra Pradesh State… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I l

¶2

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶3

I I I I i 2 i t t i ,

¶4

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 5801 OF 2014

¶10

Between:

¶11

Md Yusuf (E No.675024 ), , S/o^{Abdul Razak,} aged about 50^years, Conductor (under suspension), Bod han Depot, APSRTC, Nizamabad r,",r,.1:."=r,r,o"a*

¶12

AND

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC,, Bodhan, Nizamabad ,'.,n",.

¶14

...*ar"oNDENTs

¶15

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 or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus-

¶16

i) declare the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the petitioner vide proceeding No.Pl11 18(1)/2013-BDN, dt.30-0'1-2014 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary

¶17

ii) consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service along with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits

¶18

LA. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 7214OF 20141

¶19

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the suspension order vide^proceeding No.P111 18(1)/2013-BDN, dt.30-0'l2014 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ^petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VASUDEVA REDDY

¶20

Counsel for Respondents: Ms. D. SAI MAHITHA, COUNSEL FOR SRI THOOM SRINIVAS SC FOR TSRTC

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I I \ \

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PTTLLA I{.ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.58O1 OIr 2OI4

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Wri'. Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents ln suspending the petitioner frc n' s;ervice vide proceedings No.Pl/118(1)/2013-BDN, dated 30.01.20.4, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service alon g wi -h back wages, continuity of sr:rvice and other attendant benefits.

¶26

I I

¶27

When th,: matter is taken for hearing, Ms. D. Sai Mahitha, learned coun,;el, representing Sri Thoorn SlirLivzis, learned Standing Cour.sel for TSRTC, appearing for the respondents, on production of a copy of the proceedinlls Nr. PA,/19(4lll14DY.CTM:NZB, ,lated 24.O7.2014., submitted lhat, alter conducting disciplinary en,1uiry, the services of the petitioner w'rre terminated uide proceedings, dated O3.O7.2014. How,rver, on liling of an appeal, he wa s reinstated into service uidrr proct ed ngs, dated 24.07.2014. Ar; such, the grievance of the pe: ition,:r is redressed.

¶28

Learned⁽ ounsel appearing for the petitioner l-.as acceded to the same.

II t I I I

Prt wp_s801.20,4

Recording the above said submissions, the Writ Petition

¶38

stalds disposed of.

¶39

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ

¶40

petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶41

SD/-N. SRIHARI

¶42

ASSISTANT REGIQTRAR //TRUE COPY// L sEcfloN oFficER

¶43

To, 1. One CC to Sri K Vasudeva Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas^(SC FOR TSRTC)^Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies MBC GJ

! I I

HIGH COURT

t I

D,ATEElt 0611012023

, 6SI4r c'
l:i*
7i lo orl 2m
':)-
.:.
ORDER

¶49

WF'.No.ti8(11 of 2014

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE: WRlr PETITION

¶51

eq
{'A
\a -v2
1)

¶52

VVIT!-I()UT COSTS

¶53

Md Yusuf (E No.675024), v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Tampon Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Yusuf (E No.675024), v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Tampon Corporation

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 Singareni Collieries Company Vs Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bingi Bikshapathi Vs Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd,Chairman and M.D,Hyd,and 3

Vankudavath Jyothi, Mahaboobnagar, and Anr. Vs the a.P.Power Gen.Corp.Ltd.,Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Ch. Rama Krishna, R.R.Dist. Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

T. Devadanam Vs Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

B. Manohar, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh