Disposed

D.Srinivasulu v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC1 Mar 2024WP/12443/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government employee challenged his zone allotment transfer and sought consideration of his spouse-ground appeal. The respondents disposed of the appeal in compliance with an interim order, and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of after respondents disposed of the petitioner's appeal; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

D.Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 122143 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

D.Srinivasulu, S/o.Late D.Rannaswamy, Aged 58^years, Occ Government Employee, Rl/o.Plot No.73, Nilgiri Estate, Rampally, Ankushapur, K.V.Rangareddy - 501 301.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Govt. General Administration Department, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad 500 029

¶12

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt Medical and Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad 500 029.

¶13

3 The Director of Public Health and Family welfare, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The District Medical and Health Officer, Siddipet, Siddipet.

¶15

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^lnd ia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direciion, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proc.No.HM/DllZVllZllllMUPUl0226 dated.3Ot12t2O21 of lhe 3'd respondent in allotting the^petitioner to^{Zone lll from} Zone Vl charminar is as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and²¹ of Constitution of the lndia, and also contrary to^guidelines issued in support^of GOIVS No. 317 General Administration^(SPF-I) Department, daled OGl12l2O21^and memo No.1655|SPF - 112021-6 dt.2211212021 and circular memo No. 1655/SPF^- 112021-7 dt.2311212021 respectively, set aside the same, and consequently^direct the Respondents to re allot the^petitioner from Zone lll to Zone^Vl Charminar

¶17

under spouse grounds by considering the appeal dated 05/01/2022 in lhe interest of^justice and equity.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section^'1 51 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 consider the Representation/appeal submitted by the petitioner dated 05/0 1/2022 by re allotting the petitioner from Zone lll to Zone Vl Charminar under spouse grounds by suspending the Proc No. HM/Dl/ZVllZlllllVtUPUl0226 dated 301121202'1 of the 3'd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH JANARDHAN REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.^{12 443 of 2022}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

When the matter is taken^{up for hearing, the learnedGovernmenL} Pleader for Services^{has placed on record a copy of the procecdings in} Memo No.6a45lG 12O22-L^{dated 12 Og'2O22, andsubmits thatin} compliance of^{the interim order passed by this Court on lO 'O3 '2022} '^tl:-e respondents have^{disposed of the appealhled by the petitionerduly} considering^{his case.}

¶27

Rccording the above^{made submission,the Writ Petitionstands} disposed of

¶28

Miscellaneous^{petitionspending,ifany, shall stand closedNo}

costs

SD/. A. PRATHIMA

ASSISTANT^R<GISTRAR

//TRUE coPY/'

aEcrtorffFFlcER

To, 1 . The Chief^{Secretary to Govt' General Administratio,n Dep-artment' Secretariat'} ' BRi(R B;r;;, irre'state ot relangana' Hyderab.ad 500 029 z ii L'prrl'prr^{Secretary t"o "co't vr"tit'i arioueattn and FamilvWelfare} ' b;;il;;i s"J"lriiit,"aFr<ii ai'"1;' tne state or relansaha'^Hvderabad 500 029. s ii! 6["tor^{of pubficHeatthand Famity^welfare, Koti, Hyderabad.} i. i i.iE il^{;iil'rri'eoicii i no'He,lth off icer,s idd ipet' !l{d} i pet' ;. o;;-Cc^{t"'Siicn. .linaronan Reddv,Advocate [oPUC]-} 6. i;; 6d,^{to OCro.S".vi"es, nigh iourt for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶35

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10312024

_,-a -'--
in) l--
.r<"{-i,- ri.L s
(
)
,)J 1 I r{Afl zlfl o
* Dt.spn tcHgO I

¶40

ORDER

¶41

WP.No.12443 of 2022

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶43

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶44

lCr
t-

D.Srinivasulu v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Srinivasulu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banoth Venkatram, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Adi Babu Vs The State of Telangana

K. Srikanth, Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

Pokkula Rajani Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Dasharatha Banoth Vs The State of Telangana

Mekala Janaiah Vs Union of India