Disposed

B. Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Mar 2024WP/1764/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a writ petition concerning the petitioner's employment posting. The court directed state authorities to dispose of pending representations within six weeks or communicate existing orders within two weeks, allowing petitioner further legal remedies if grievances remain unaddressed.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to dispose of pending representations within six weeks or communicate existing orders within two weeks; petitioner retained right to pursue other remedies.

B. Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t
i
l
,i
[ 3301 ]
I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
I AT HYDERABAD
! (Soeciat original Jurisdiction)
ff
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF IVARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
j
I PRESENT
I
THE HdNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO: 1764 OF 2022
Between:
B. Mallaiah, S/o. Ivlutta h, aged about 58 years, Principal, Govt. lTl, Dindi, Nalgonda
District .t
I
l ...PETITIONER
ND II
1. Th EJ tate of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment
andTrarnrng an d Factories Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissio nfer and Director, Employment and Training Department,
Telangana Statd; Mallepally, Hyderabad.
t,I ...RESPONDENTS
f
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the
j
ircumstances statedlin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
leased to issue a Wrli ,or" in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ
t
rder or direction, to Ueclare the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent
I
bearing Proc.No.LfuEM/MU/NIl/PROF/0013, dated 2711212021, alloting the
Petitioner from Multi /One- tt to Multi Zone- l,though the vacancies are available
I
in the cadre of Princifal is totally exfacie illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutiona I and
id and also as well Js G.O.Ms.No.317, GA (SPF) Dept, dated 0611212021 being
iolative of Arts. 14, 1 A and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same
nd consequently di the Respondents to re-allot the petitioner as Principal in
Multi Zone- ll with all onsequential benefits, as otherwise the petitioner will be
ut to hardship

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

)

ii Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the ctrcumstances^{stated in} l the affidavit filed in sUpport of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto} direct the Respondents :] to re- allot/ continue the^{petitioneras Principalin tvlulti} Zone- ll by suspending the operation of the impugned^order of^{the 2nd} Respondent bearing Proc No. LA/EM/M U/lMI/PROF/001 3, dated^{27 I 1 21} 2021^. U i

¶7

Counsel for the Peti ti5ner : M/s.R.RAJASEKHARA RAO ounsel for the Res pbndents: I! GP FOR SERVICES I I e Court made the ftltowing: oRDER

¶8

H t T flI fl f, f, f :i x tl il fl !! i I H H I u I I 1 ! ,i I l

¶9

t I

¶10

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶12

WRIT PETITION No. 1764 of 2022

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Court on 17.O1.2O22^granted interim^{orders directing} the respondent authorities to dispose of the^appeal(s)/ representation(s) filed by the^{petitioner(s).}

¶15

2l In spite of the matter being adjourned^from time to^timefor ascertaining the latest instructions in the^{matter, either the learned} counsel for the petitioner(s) or the^{learned GovernmentPleaderare} unable to repor[ the instructions to the Court.

¶16

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:

¶17

a) If the respondent authorities have not yet disposed of^the appeal(s)/ representation(s) filed by the petitioner/sⁱⁿ terms of the interim order passed by this Court^on 17.O1.2022, they shall dispose of the same within a^period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, invariably, and communicate a copy of the order to the petitioner(s) within a period of two weeks thereof;

¶18

¶19

¶20

b) In case the appeal(s)/ representation(s) is/are already disposed of, the respondent authorities shall communicate a copy of the order(s) to the petitioner(s) within a period of two weeks from today; and

¶21

c) If the grievance of the petitioner(s) ls not yet redressed,

¶22

helshe/they is/are at liberty to pursue the remedies

¶23

available under the law.

¶24

1. With the above directions, the Writ petition is disposecl of.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶26

There shal1 be no order as to costs.

¶27

SD/- K. SAI KUMARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t ,tRUE coPY// n SECTION OFFICER o, li 'l . The Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training and Factories Dept., Secietariat,^{State of Telangana, Hyderabad} 2. Th6 Commissioner^{and Director'Employment} and Training Department, Telangana Statd,^{Mallepally,Hyderabali.} 3. ONE CC^{tO SRI R,RAJASEKHARA RAO, AdVOCAIE} . [oPUC] 4. Two CCs to G!^{FOR SERVICESl, Hiqh Court f} or the State of Telangana. 5. Two CD Copies{ BSK E KKS I I cH( I fl ii flI t I

¶28

al HIGH COURT il DATED:2010312024 ! ilIi I I I i i ir x ll H i'ORDER WP.No.1764 ot I!r 2022

¶29

-fEL4
oQ C
(t
v
4
.$
clct- s ou
"l
*
H \r

¶30

¶31

fi DISPOSING OtH THE WRIT PETITION i' WITHOUT COSTS l rl 1

¶32

j I

¶33

@ryr
i+,tfl
t

¶34

E g ,l { I d I l1 I

B. Mallaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Mallaiah 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

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

M. Devaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kota Anitha Vs The District Educational Officer

Vijayalakshrni Baroorgudupally Vs The State of Telangana