Disposed

T. Lakshmana Rao, v. High Court of a.P., Rep. by Reg.(Vigilence)

Telangana HC2 Jan 2024WP/14104/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a judicial officer regarding the issuance of a mandamus for earned leave entitlement, finding the grievance redressed and granting liberty to revive the petition if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed; petitioner granted liberty to revive the Writ Petition if grievance survives. No order as to costs.

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs High Court of a.P., Rep. by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^33e3 ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

i PRESENT

¶6

i THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶7

wRtT PET|TION NO.14104 0F 2008

¶8

Between:

¶9

T. Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Ramakrishna Sastrulu, aged 61 years, Fi./o. Plot No. 21, GA-ll, Bank Colony, P & T Colony Post, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500 060.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Registrar, Vigilance, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

i .._RESPONDENTS

¶14

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, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner having served as Judicral Officer governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Services Rules read with All lndia Service (Leave) Rules, 1955 is entitled to claim earned leave credited to his account subject to the limit of a maximum of 300 days after setting asrde the order of the respondent authorities dated 12-07 -2006 and 17-12-2007 in their^proceeding in Roc. No.42612006-B Spl. read with Notification No 846/8 Spl., and Roc.No. 42612007-B Spl., respectively as illegal and void.

¶15

E I . i

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008{WP P. NO: 18195 OF 2008)

¶17

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 expedite the hearing of the above case by fixing an early date.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.R.K. CHOWDARY, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI P. V. MAHESH

¶19

,i ll Counsel for the Resportdents: SRI SUMANTH RAVURI FOR {^SRIBATHULA RAJ KIRAN, S.C. FOR APHC

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOKARADHE} AND THE HON'BLE SHRI^{JUSTICE ANIL KUMARJUKANTI} WRIT PETITION No.14104 of²⁰⁰⁸

¶23

ORDER:1per the Hon'ble^{the ChiefJusticeAlok Aradhe)}

¶24

Mr. M.R.K. Chowdary,^{learned Senior Counsel}

¶25

represents Mr. P.V. Mahesh,^{leamedcounsel for the petitioner'}

¶26

Mr. Sumanth Ravuri,^{learned counsel appears for}

¶27

Mr. Bathula Raj Kiran,^{learned counselfor the respondent'}

¶28

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner fairlysubmits that the} grievance of the^{petitionerstands redressed'In casethe} gricvance of the^{petitionerstill survives, he be grarrtcd liberty} to rcvive the Writ^Petition.

¶29

With the aforesaid^{liberty, the Writ Petition stands}

¶30

disposed of.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending' shall stand}

¶32

closed. l'here shalI^{be no order as to costs'}

¶33

To,

¶34

11 SD/. N.SRIHARI sslsrANTtEGlFTRAR ,i ;i //TRUE coPY// \ '/ (.' ii sEcrloN oFFlcER .l { 1 The Registrar, Vigilance, High^{Court of Andhra Pradesh, HighCourt Buildings,} Hyderabad- r 2 One CC to SRI^P. V.^{MAHESH, Advocate} [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI BATHULA^{RAJKIRAN, S.C. for APHC} [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

MP GJ s

HIGH COURT

,l
t
l,I
l
i

DATED:02 t}ll2OZ4

.i,t:- -r..i;.
C-;
(>
P
o 3 1 ,lRtt zli+
-')!:,.
* r)/
.-, I ..r:/
Ir/^TCF\...,2'
---o(DER

¶40

WP.No.14104 ot 2008

¶41

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

G)',4'8
9e
t I y*

T. Lakshmana Rao, v. High Court of a.P., Rep. by Reg.(Vigilence)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Lakshmana Rao, v. High Court of a.P., Rep. by Reg.(Vigilence)

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

Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. Vs Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Vs The Singareni Collieries Workers Union

Mr. Venu Akula Vs India Bulls Housing Finance Limited

Sai Gangadhar Vs III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, And Another

Ch. Vedavani, Hyd Vs Collector, R.R. Dt. and 2 Ot

M/s.Imperial Granites Private Limited Vs The Chief Secretary