Dismissed

Habeeb Mohammed v. The Union of India

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024WP/35070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment. The High Court, at hearing, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge a subsequent rejection order, subsequently dismissing the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge a subsequent rejection order; petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Habeeb Mohammed Vs The Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 35070 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Habeeb Mohammed, S/o Wahiduddin, Aged about 38 years, Occ; Unemployee, Fl/o H.No. 24-5-235, Darga Kazipet, Hanmakonda, Warangal District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶12

The Director, National lnstitute of Technology, Warangal.

¶13

.....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 particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation dated OB-07 -2024 and 29-10-202'1 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutiona l, discriminatory, contrary to the orders of this Honorable Court in W.P.No.'1 331 ot 2021 , violative of principles of natural^justice, and violative ot Arl. 12, 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to^grant compassionate appointment to the^petitioner duly considering the above representations.

¶15

¶16

I.A. :1 0 F 2024

¶17

Petition Under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2nd respondent to provide suitabre emproyment to the petitioner under compassionate appointment by considering the representations dated 0g_07_ 2024 and 29-10-2021 pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.RAJA SHEKAR NA|K

¶19

counselforthe Respondent No.1 : sRr N.RAVi, REPRESENTTNG sRr GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUry SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI T.MAHENDER RAO

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

¶23

l I

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.35O7O OF 2o24

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

When the matter is taken up for^{hearing,learned} counsel for the petitioner^{seekspermission of this Court to} withdraw the writ petition with^{liberty to challengethe} rejection order No.A-38017/29 12O24-Admn,^dated 15.12.2024, passed by^{respondentNo.2.}

¶28

Permission, as sought^{for, is accorded.}

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is^{dismissed as} withdrawn granting liberty as^{soughtfor by the petitioner.} There sha1l be no order^{as to costs.}

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions if^{any, pending in this writ}

¶31

petition shall stand closed. .T

¶32

SD/.L.^LAKSHMTBABU ASSIS T REGIS^T

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

I2 3ffi 33^{B sEl str,$Eii4=srilfiIf{g3Ftj?+"sJ,"lToR GENERAL}

¶37

3 S:i[Zttt''T1l'it"oJ#r?*RAo,Advocate(oPuc) 4 Two CD^CoPies SA BSK

*,,)--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911212024

ORDER

WP.No.35070 of 2024

1t ig STA
0 i 1:.r 2[25
)a'
t oEsrra+/ i:

¶45

DISMISSING THE W.P

¶46

AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS.

¶47

a
r\r<

Habeeb Mohammed v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habeeb Mohammed v. The Union of India

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

Vadithya Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Telukuntla Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

Burgula Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

T.Saritha Vs The State of Telangana

M. Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mamilla Kiran Kumar Vs The Union of India