Dismissed

Smt.B.Lakshmi Bai. v. Secty.,S.a.P.Finance DEPT,HYD.AND4 Others

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023WP/7994/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a school teacher, approached the High Court for revision and refixing of pay with consequential benefits. The court dismissed the writ petition due to non-prosecution as counsel for the petitioner was absent on multiple listing dates without joining the matter.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution. Pending miscellaneous petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.

Smt.B.Lakshmi Bai. Vs Secty.,S.a.P.Finance… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7994 OF 2003

¶7

Between:

¶8

SMT.B. Lakshmi Bai., W/o: Rajaiah, Aged about 46^years, Attender Manoranjitha Memorial Girls High School. Ramkote., Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat buildings., Saifabad., Hyderabad.

¶12

2 District Educational Officer.,, Hyderabad District.,Hyderabad.

¶13

3 Commissioner & Director of School, Education., Hyderabad.

¶14

4 Regional Joint Director of School, Education., Hyderabad.

¶15

5 Manoranjitham Memorial Girls, High School., rep.by its Hon.Secretary, Ramkote., Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents^{hereinto reviseand refix} the pay of the^petitioner as^per the^proposals of the^{correspondent,} Manoranjitham Memorial Girls high School, Ramkote,^Hyderabadin Rc.No.1599/2002 dated 23-11-2OO2 and 1623 dated 03-03-2003^{in the light of} the proceedings of the District Educational Officer.,^Hyderabadin Rc.No.5997iB2l99 dated 24-2-2003 and the^proceedings of^{the Regional Joint} Director of School Education, Hyderabad in^Rc. No.45591A112002^dated'1-11- 2002 and accord all consequential and other^{attendant benefits as regards} arrears of^pay and allowances and such other^{benefits as maybe expedientor}

¶18

the interest of^justic ) warrant, and^{pass such other order r:)r ordersas this} Hon'ble Court may dc er1 fit and^{properin the circumstancesof .he :ase.}

¶19

t.A. NO:^'l OF 2003(W^rMP. NO:^{10387 OF 2003}

¶20

Petition under Serction 151 CPC^{prayingthat in theci 'cttms;tances stated} in the affidavit filed ir support of the^{petition,the HighCourt Iay be pleased to} direct the respondenl s :o release the^{salaryand allowanceso' thtl petitioner by} revision and refixatior cf^pay and^{pass such other order or orj(;rs as the Hon'ble} court may deem fit ar d croper in the circumstances^{of the case,.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petit oner: SRl.^{Y. VENKAT SASTRY(NOT PFESENT)}

¶22

Counsel for the Res5 ortdent No.1: GP^{FOR FINANCE}

¶23

Counsel for the^Res6 ondent^{No.2 to 5: GP FOR SCHOOLEDI'l{lAllON}

¶24

The Court made the¹ ollowing: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.7994 of 2OO3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner when this matter was taken up for hearing on 06.03.2023. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption^,,For Dismissal,, on 13.03.2023.

¶29

Today, though the matter appears under the caption ,For Dismissal', there is no representatiorl yet agairy for the petitioner when it is taken up for hearing.

¶30

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non_ prosecution.

¶31

Pending Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶32

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33

SD'-C.^PRA VEEN KUMAR ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR

¶34

//TRUE^COPY//

¶35

SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

'"'i1:EEii,'loJiJ.,ffi 5. fwo CCs^{to GP forS} flrn.#"r:l,Jtrbil'HiHsffffi^l?"ln,", TJ o lllto "oo'". sw -/ d

¶37

HIGH COI.JRT

¶38

DATED:14103'2023

¶39

.< ,:.':': ,. ' :':
l, ) E Ii..' ?l2l
,..

¶40

ORDER

¶41

WP.No.7994 cf 2003

¶42

DISMISSING l HE WRIT PETITION

¶43

FOR NON-PRoSECUTION

¶44

WITHOUT COIiTS.

¶45

t
-l -4

Smt.B.Lakshmi Bai. v. Secty.,S.a.P.Finance DEPT,HYD.AND4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.B.Lakshmi Bai. v. Secty.,S.a.P.Finance DEPT,HYD.AND4 Others

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

Abdul Hakeem,Nizamabad Dist Vs Apsrtc,Md,Hyd,and 2

Tippana Latchi Reddy Vs Ganesh

India Pentecostal Church of God represented by President Vs E.S.Yohan

K.Pavan Kumar.R.R.Dist. Vs Secty.,Union of INDIA.N.DELHI.AND4 Others.

Ulli Sampath alias Vulli Sampath Vs Sri Prashnth Jeevan Patil,and another

T.L.Swamy, Nizamabad. Vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nizamabad and Another