Disposed

Boya. Naresh v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC21 Dec 2023WP/9744/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a Panchayat Secretary challenging non-consideration of an appeal for zone allocation. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the disposal proceedings separately, closing the present petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to challenge the proceedings dated 13.06.2022; W.P. disposed of without costs.

Boya. Naresh Vs The State of Telangana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9744 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bova. Naresh, S/o.Narsimhulu,^{Aged 38 years,Panchayat SecretaryGrade-|,} Eniployee lD No. 1762008,^{PermanentRl/o.D.No.4-3-100/2, GadwalMandal,} Mahabubnagar District, Telangana-509125.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and} Rural Developmenf Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶12

The Commissioner of Panchayatraj^{Urdu Hall Lane, HimayathNagar'} Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

The District Collector^{(Panchayatraj Wing), Nagarkurnool (Mahaboobnagar)} District.

¶14

The District Collector^{(Panchayatraj Wing), Nizamabad District.}

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226^{of lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit fiied therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ in the nature^{of Mandamus or any other appropriatewrit,} order or direction, by declaring^{the actionof the respondentsin not considering} the Appeal Filed by the Petitioner^{daled 2911212021to consider his case of the} for allocation to Zone-Vll-Jogulamba^{as per seniority and on Medical ground,as} per G.O.Ms.No.317, G.A.^{(SPF-1)Department,dated0611212021, is illegal'} arbitrary and unconstitutional^{being violative of Articles14, 16 and 21 o1} Constitution of lndia and^{consequentlydirect the respondentsto consider the} case of the^{petitioner and allocate him to zone-Vll-Jogulamba as per seniority} and on the^ground of^{{nconvenience to the Family aM Children'}

¶17

!.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

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 direct the respondents to pass orders on the appeal daled 2911212021 filed by the petitioner by allocating the petitioner to zone-Vll-Jogulamba as per seniority , as per G.O.Ms.No.317, c.A. (SPF-1) Department.

¶19

Couns6l for the Petitioner : SRI S.SAWANARAYANA MOORTHY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES - ll

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PI'LLI\ KARTIIIK

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.9744 of 2ol22

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Aggrieved by the action of respondents in not considering the appeal filed by the^{petitioner,dated} 29.12.2021, the present Writ Petition is^filed.

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Services - II appearing on^{behalf of} respondents No.l to 4 has^placed on record a^copy of^the proceedings uide No.6 / CPR&RE/82lMdl/ 2022-22, dated 13.06.2022, and submitted that in compliance of^the interim order passed by this Court on 23.02.2022,^th.e respondents have disposed of the appeal filed by^the petitioner by duly rejecting his case.

¶27

At this^juncture, learned counsel for the^petitioner has sought liberty to challenge the^{proceedings,dated} t3.06.2022.

¶28

In view of the submissions made by the respective counsel, the Writ Petition is^{disposedof granting} liberty^to

¶29

¶30

the petitioner to challenge the proceedings, dated 13.06.2022, if he so desires. There shall be no order as to

¶31

costs.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶33

closed

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

SD/.V.HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

¶38

'r' The Principar secretarv, panchayat.Raj and Rurar Deveropment Department,

¶39

^{Secretariat,Stateof T6tangana dt Hyd6rabil.- - -}

¶40

The Commissioner of eandtayairai liiJrlIii't_rnu, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.'

¶41

TheDistrict Collecior(panchayatraj Wing), Nagarkumool (Mahaboobnagar)

¶42

3: jX,ffi !18"J'Lts"ff eH,i,S€5:i,ytitflJji?i,]Sii,,"oJij[j:,,e,ansanaar Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶43

One CC to Sri S.Satvanarayana Moorthy, Advocate tOpUCI 7. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

¶44

Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCopies

SA SB W

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 11212023

aFl-A.,r
7
a.r .s
a"
i- utc
F
-.
o <br><br>
c H

ORDER

WP.No.9744 of 2O2Z

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

1o^cYM w ,6.-ttz-t

Boya. Naresh v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya. Naresh v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Madhavi Latha Vs The State of Telangana

J. Sangameshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.R.Vandana Vs The State of Telangana

Golla. Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

P.Karuna Sri Vs The State of Telangana

Mallepalli.Madhavi Latha Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others