Disposed

M. Devaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024WP/11216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public health employee challenged transfer allotment to a new zone ignoring his health-based request and seniority. With interim orders from 2022 unimplemented, the court directed the authorities to decide his appeal or representation within six weeks and communicate the order, leaving statutory remedies open.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to dispose of appeal/representation within six weeks and communicate orders within two weeks; liberty to pursue legal remedies; no costs.

M. Devaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEPULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:1 12160F 2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Devaiah, S/o^{Somaiah,Age. 59 years,Occ' MPHA(M)' O/o DMand.HO (District} il"ifi; dirii]i,^{ny". H. H,i. i"s:2s&,i,-5ri',iir"" Nagar, JdsathgiriGutta,Shapurnagar'} R'R Dist' 5ooo37

¶9

PETtTtoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its P.rincipalSecretary' Health' Medical and} Family Welfare^{De[artment,Secretariat, Hyderabad}

¶12

2 The Director, Public^{Healthand FamilyWelfare, Hyderabad, Telangana State'}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleasedtoissueawritororderordireclionmoreparticularlyoninthenatureof writ of Mandamus^{by calling for the records relating to the proceedings} HMlDllHYtzlv/MUPU/O0oT,daled2gll2t202lofallottingthepetitionertothe new local cadre^{Zone Vll, Jogulambafrom ErstwhileLocal Cadre Zone-Vl'} Hyderabad^{withoutconsideringthe petitioners request on health ground as well} as retaining several iuniors^{which is contrary to clause20 and 27 of G'O Ms No'} 317 dt.06t1212021^{as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutionalbeing violative of articles} 14, 16 and 21^{of constitutionof lndia and set aside the sameand consequently} direct the respondents^{to croftsiderhis case and allocate him to Zone-Vlon} considering^{the petitioners seniority otherwisehe would be put to heavy and} irreparable loss.

¶15

1A NO: 10F 2022

¶16

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the Highcourt may be pleasedto} direct the respondents to^{retain/allotthe petitionerto Zone-Vl,Hyderabadby} suspending the operation^{of the impugned proceedingsof allotmentto Zone-Vll,} Jogulamba bearing No.^{HM/D1/HY/Z1VIMUPU/0007, dated2911212021.issuedby} the 2nd respondent,^{otherwisethe petitionerwill be put to heavyand irreparable} loss.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRIGADI PRAVEEN KUMAR}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR SERVICESll}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

i li lj J I I I

l I 1 i l I t ! i l

I I

I I

THE HON'BLE siRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTIIIK

¶26

WRIT PETTTION No. rt216 of 20/22

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Court on O3.O3.2O22 granted interim orders directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the appeal(s)/ representation(s) filed by the petitioner(s).

¶29

In spite of the matter being adjourned from ume to dme for ascertaining the latest instructions in the matter, either the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) or the learned Government pleader are unable to report the instructions to the Court.

¶30

Having regard to the fact that the matter is pending since two years and the interim orders were already passed in favour of the petitioner(s), this Court is of the considered view that instead of the keeping the writ Petition pending, it can be disposed of with the following directions:

¶31

a) If the respondent authorities have not yet disposed of the appeal(s)/representation(s) filed by the petitioner/s in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on O3.O3.2O22, they shall dispose of ttre same within a period of six weeks from 1e6ay, invariably, and communicate a copy of the order to the petitioner(s) within a period of two weeks thereof;

¶32

'')

¶33

b) In case the appeal(s) / representation(s)^{is/are aiready} disposed of, the respondent authorities^{shall communicate} a copy of the order(s) to the^{petitioner(s) withina periodof} two weeks from today; and

¶34

c) If the grievance of the^{petitioner(s)} is^{not yet redressed,} he/she/they is/are at liberty to^{pursue the remedies} available under the law.

¶35

4l With the above directions, the Writ Petition^{is disposed of}

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if^{any, shallstandclosed}

¶37

There shall be no order as to costs

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

SD/. B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTI N OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Depa;tment, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶44

The Director, Public Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶45

One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUCI 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶46

Two CD Copies.

0rf

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010312024

ORDER

WP.No.11216 of 2022

.,'z.,.ij ' 1i] ij/.r,. ''
,'. \ ''
( j. i:<br>i".:,.'
.t
J,..,,,,
?au
)
{1,

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WTHOUT COSTS

¶57

vl
5
\5
tr!

M. Devaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Devaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanda Annapurna Vs The State of Telangana

M.Parameshwari Vs State of Telangana

G. Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

Kota Anitha Vs The District Educational Officer

Vijayalakshrni Baroorgudupally Vs The State of Telangana

B. Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana