Disposed

Nangari Durga Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Oct 2024WP/29377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Casual labourers of Singareni Collieries, Yellandu Area sought a mandamus directing consideration of their representation for continuation and regularisation of service and against threatened removal. Counsel confined the prayer to consideration of the representation; the court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent No.4 to consider it and pass orders in accordance with law within six

What the court decided

AI extract

Nangari Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

[^3s01 ]

¶4

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 29377 0F 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Nangari _Durga Prasad, S/o Kanthaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ Causal Labour, R/o H. No. 21- 104, Sanjay Nagafl Sudimaila. V6tfanal, (frammam District.

¶10

2 Y-?t91,^{RaviMra..Pra^sad,^S/oLingaiah, Aged about 39 years,Occ Causal} Laoour, H/o t-t. No. 23- 98, lndira Nagar, Sudina{la, yellandu, Khammam District.

¶11

3 Kothapalli N^avin, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 3g years, Occ Casual Labour, R/o I, .]!q.^{5- 8- 105, Ceruvu Katti, Ambedkar'Nagir,} Vettrnar, Kil;;;; District.

¶12

4 P-onnam^Srinivas Rao, Sio. Venkaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ Casual Laoour, H/o H. no. 1- 4- 14911,lndfra Nagai, yellandu, Khdmmam District.

¶13

AND

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

1 I!" "Stfl:^{of Telangana,Rep^.by its principat Secretary, Medicat, Heatth and} Famrll'. wefiare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secr6tariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

1. lhe Chairman and Managing Director (CMD), Sinqareni Cotories Comoanv

¶17

!td,^{(A Government Com-patv),singari:ni} eli"i;-nJ [ilt.,'i6;i;til1 Hyderabad.

¶18

3 The Director (P. A. an( W), SCCL, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dlstrict.

¶19

4 The General Manager, singareni colleries company Limited, yellandu Area, Kothagudem Districi.

¶20

5 6 iisgH:i8fi^{,:gryr5Hlt""',1"T'liJ,:'1il*,KhammamDistrict} 7 The GM Personal 1iIU, Xotnagudem, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District

¶21

..,RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226'o{{he Gonstitr:rtion of lndia praying that in the circumstancas stated;jn the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an a&ropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation submitted by the petitioners on 19. 0g.2024, and threatening to the petitioners for removbl of service as causal labour which is

¶23

situated at Yellandu^{Area, KhammamDistrict,singarenicolloeries, is highly} illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional,^{violationof Principlesof NaturalJustice and} violation of Articles 14,^{19 and 21 of the Constitutionof lndiaand consequently} direct the respondents^{authority to continuethe petitioners in serviceand} regularize their services in^{the respondent company} lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} direct the respondent authority^{toconsider the petitioners submitted} representation dated^{19. 09. 2024, to continue the petitionersin serviceand} regulariTe their services in^{the respon<ientcompany pending disposalof the} main writ^petition in the^{interest of justice}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. KALVAI.ASANJEEV}

¶26

Coqnsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR} SERVICES^I

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 2to7: SRI P. SRI HARSHAREDDY, SC} The Court made the following;^ORDER

¶28

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶30

IVRIT PETITION No. 29377 0F 20.24

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

. With the consent of both the counsel, the Writ

¶33

Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶34

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the

¶35

Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶36

"... to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering thi representation submitted by the petitioners on 19.09.2024 arld threatening to the petitioners for removaj of sersice as causal labour which is situated at Yellandu Area, Khammam District, Singareni Collieries, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents auttrcrity to continue the petifioners in service and regularize their services in the respondent company and to grant such other relief..."

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶38

learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondent No.l and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 7.

¶39

Though the present Writ petition is frled seeking the aforesaid relief, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the pe[itioners cpnflned his argument and prays this Court to consider the representation of the

I I

)

petitioners, dated 19.O9.2024, and^{pass approprlate} orders.

¶45

Learned Government Standing^{Counsel for} Singareni Collieries Company^{Limited submitsthat} respondent No.4 will consider^{the representationof the} petitioners, dated L9.O9.2024, and^{pass appropriate} orders, in accordalce with^law.

¶46

Having regard to the submissions^madeby learned counsel for respective^{parties,without going into} the merits of the case, the Writ^{Petition is disposedof} directing respondent No.4 to consider^{representation of} the petitioner, dated 19.09.2024, ald^{pass appropriate} orders strictly' in accord.ance^{with law, as expeditiously as} possible, preferably within a period of six {6)^{weeks from} the date of receipt of a copy of this^{order. There shallbe} no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions if any,^{pendingin this Writ}

¶48

Petition shall stand closed.

¶49

SD'.P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSTSTANT^REGI9TRAR

//TRUE coPY//

To,

1 The Principal^{Secretary,lVledical'Health'and Family WelfareDepartment'} Seiretiriat'^{Bu ild ings, Secretariat.T S, Hyde-rabgd'}

¶54

2 fi;' cH;;;^{; i"a"lvi" ri gi n g oi r6ctor'(i ltl o ), si ngaren i crc lo riescompa nv} lia, tn Coretnment^{Com-pariy),SingarbniBliawan Red Hills'Khairatabad'} Hvd<irabad.

¶55

3 ifrE"Oir6"t",^{(P. A. and W), SCCL, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem} District.

¶56

¶57

¶58

1. The General Manaoer singareni coileries company Limited, yeilandu Area, Kothagudem DistriCt.

¶59

1. Il* Qtpul,r*ding^{Enginee(Civit), yeltandu,Kharnmam} District. 0. lhe SO- 2 GM, Sinqareni Collorv. yellandu 7. In".9t!t^Personat 1lRy,^{fothagud.ql, BhaJradri-} Kothagudem Distrbt E. 9n" 9Q^{ro SRt. KALVALA SANJEEV,} eavocie toiiu"cl^{- -' -'}

¶60

1. LWg^{CQ. to} _gP^{FOR SERVTCESt} ,n(2tr^{Court ioi-tne-Sdate} of Tetargana at l-.lyderaPad [OUr]

¶61

10 9n.9Q !o^{SBt P. SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC} topucl 11 Two^qP 6or;". BM

I I

HIGH COURT

: DATED:2811O12024

ORDER

( o?. 1HE S t.1
,-) r
t.
2 I il[i/ zflt
I * t' l/
'-4;CrrEO

¶69

WP.No.29377 ot 2024

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶71

t{ ,fld
X"

Nangari Durga Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nangari Durga Prasad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Arun Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Goreti Arun Kumar Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

J. Kavitha, Vs The State of Telangana

Lukulapu Kamaraju Vs State Oftelangana

Potlapally Ravinder Vs The District Educational Officer

Kasarapu Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana