Disposed

Md. Nayeem Pasha, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC6 Sept 2024WP/19947/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a writ petition filed by a contract driver seeking regularization of service and continuity of benefits. The court noted that the petitioner had already been regularized and appointed on a regular basis during the pendency of the petition, rendering further orders unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition closed as service regularization had already been effected during pendency.

Md. Nayeem Pasha, Vs The Regional Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH^DAY OF^SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:¹⁹⁹⁴⁷ OF^20'12

¶7

Between:

¶8

t/ D Naveem Pasha. S/o. t\Iiskin^{Pasha,Aqed about 29 years, Contract Driver} (C-g2o,ii3). APSRTC, Kalwakurthy Bus Depot.^{I/ahaboobnagarDistrict, A.P.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Regional Manager. APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar^Region,at [/ahaboobnaoar.

¶12

2 The Depot^-lvlanager. APS RTC, APSRTC, KalwakurthY^{Bus DePot,} [/ahaboobnagar District,^A.P.

¶13

..RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiledtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order or directlon^{more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of l/andamus declaring that^{the action of the respondents in not effecting the} order of re-engagement^{with continuityof service of the petitioneras contract} Driver is bad, arbitrary,^{illegal, unlust, unreasonableand also contrary to the} judgment of this Hon'ble court, as the termiflation^{of the petitioner is againstto} the principles of natural^{justiceand against to the corporation circularsand} consequently direct the^{respondents to treat the 2nd respondent letter,dt.'10-03-} 2011 as retnstatement of^{the petitioner as Drtver with continuity of service,} attendant benefits and with^{all consequential service benefitsincluding} regularization

¶15

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012 WPMP. NO:2 5559 0F 2012)

¶17

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to effect continuity of service between the period of termination to re-engagement of the petitioner for regura.zation of hrs services by treating the respondent No.2 Ietter, dt 10_03_2Oj l as re_engagement wrth continuity of service with aI consequentiar service benefits incruding reg ula risation

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. p. VENKATESHWAR RAO

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. p. SAI MAHITHA REp

¶20

sRt R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶23

WRIT P^{ETTTIONNo.L9947 0F 20L2}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ^{petition is filed seekingthe following relief:}

¶26

"To issue Writ^{Order or Directionmoreparticularly} o.r" in tfr"^{natureof Writ of Mandamus declaringthat} the action of^{the respondentsin not effectingthe} order of ."-".tg.g"-"'it^{with continuity of serviceof} ift" - p.tltlo.r.t 1s" Contract Driver is bad' arbitrary' illegal, unjust,^{unreasonableand also contraryto the} j"a?"-r"",Lr this Honbte court' as^{the terminationof} ihe"petitioner^{is againstto the pnnciples of natural} .|r"ti."^{rna againsi to the corporationcircularsand} '"o.r""qrl".ttty tirect the respondents t9 -tt^tl! .the 2"d ,."po.ra".rt^{letter, dated:10 032011as} ieir,"tat.m.nt^{of tire petitioner as Driverwith} of service,^{att;ndantbenefits and with all} ".tti"rity consequential^{service benefitsincluding} ."grfriir.tio"^{ald pass suchother orderor orders "}

¶27

Heard Sri^{P. Venkateshwer Rao' learned counsel for} the petitioner^{and Ms' P' Sai Mahitha' learnedcounsel} representing^{Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for} TSRTC.

¶28

When the matter^{is taken up for hearing'learned} counsel for^{the petitioner submits that during the} pendency of the^{writ petition'respondent-Corporation} regularized the^{service of petitioner vide Proceedings} No.P3/255(1 ll2Ol4-KLKy,^{dated 18'06'2014'He further}

!--r--_

submits rhat from Ol.OS.2O14, petitioner u,as appointed on regular basis. No further orders are necessary to be passed in this Writ Petition

¶33

4 Recording the said submission, the Writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

Misr:ellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed

¶35

To,

¶36

SD/- P..C^H. NAGABH USHAMBA ASStSTANTtEGtSTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SEC,TIdN OFFICER

¶37

1 One CC to SRt 2 One CC to SRl. r 3 Two CD C9pr65^{R XIUffiL'?SyffJffA#ii6gi} 6? ",. BM LS

HlGH COURT

DATED:06 t09t2024

ORDER

I oR THI: S r,i
L')
O
(\f
O E JAii, N25 ,>
1()t+
r)
a
-- '--...--4/ ..,t.

¶43

WP.No.1994t of 2012

¶44

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS

¶45

fpr ir/
p,r
4\1"

Md. Nayeem Pasha, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Nayeem Pasha, v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

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

The South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Vs The Second Appellate Authority

The Scr Emp.Co-Op.Credit Society Ltd.,Secunderabad. Vs the II Appellate Authority,Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

The South Central Railway Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Credit Society Kalher Vs State of Telangana

Golf Pride Homes Welfare Society Residents Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Ncl Industries Limited Vs The State of Telangana