Petitioner challenged denial of notional seniority from 2007. Court disposed of writ petition by directing Respondent No.3 to consider regularization representation within four weeks.
Direction to Respondent No.3 to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within 04 weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3301 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO:5978 OF 2024
Between:
p Rq1u, S./o. _ Narsaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Driver, at yadagirigutta Bus Depot, Yadadri Bhongiri District.
..PETITIONER
AND
..RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constituti.on of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for notional seniority from the date of his batchmates i.e. from 01-07-2007 instead of 2009 i.e. in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145, d ated 01.07.2009 as per the Judgement in Writ Petitions No. 14783 of 2010 and b atch dt. 12-10-2011, and also in W.P,No.10603 of 2010 dt.26-11-2013 and tyl/.P.No.16379 ot 2011 dl. 18-04-2012, the said action of the resp6ndents is as h ghly illegal arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in violation of p -inciples of natural justice and also in violation of Art, 14, 16 and 21 of the c onstitution of lndia and declare the same as bad-in-law and consequenfly direct
'/the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for fixation of seniority along with their batch mates i-e. from 01-07-2007 instead of 200g in terms of G o Ms No 145, dated 01.07.2009 as per the Judgement in writ petition Nos. '14783 of 2010 and batch dt. 12-10-2011, and arso in w.p,No..r0603 of 2010 d1.26-11-2013 and W.p.No.163t9 of 2011 dt. 1B_O4-2o12, by passing final orders on the representation dt.13_02_2023 which is pending with 3rd respondent.
lA l,lO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under section 15't cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired ih support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for fixation of seniority along with their batch mates i.e, from 01-07-2007 instead of 2009 in terms of G o.Ms.No.145, dated 01 .07 -2oog as per the Judgement in writ petition Nos. 14783 of 2O1O and batch dt. 12_10-2011, and atso by following in w P No.10603 0f 2010 dt26-11-2013 and w.p.No,16 379 0f 2011 dt. 18-04-20,12, by passing final orders on the representation dt.13-o7 -2023 which is pending with 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner: SRI C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR SERVICES
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC
The Court made the foilowing: ORDER
I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.5978 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of Constitution of
India seeking the following reliel
"... fo issue an appropriate Wit, Order or direction, preferablg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus and to declare the action of the respondents in not consideing the case of *e petitioner for notional senioitg from the date of his batch-mates i.e., from 01.O7.2OO7 instead of 2OO9 i.e., in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145, dated O1.O7.2OO9 as per the Judgement in Wit Petitions No.14783 of 2010 and batch dt 12.10.2011 and also in W.P.No.106O3 of 2O1O dt.26.11.2O13 and W.P.No.16379 of 2O11 dt.18.04.2012, the said oction of the respondenfs is os highlg illegal, arbitrary, unreosonable, discriminotory and also in uiolation of principles of naturaljustice ond also in uiolation of Art.14, 16 and 21 of ttte Constitution of India and declore the same as bod in law and consequently direct the respondents to consider tLe case of the petitioner for fixationof senioritg along uith theirbatch mates i.e., from01.07.2007 insteod of2OO9 intenns of G.O.Ms.No.145 dated O1.O7.2OO9 as per the Judgement in Writ Petition Nos.14783 of 2O1O and batch dt.12.1O.2011 and also in W.P.No.1O603 of 2O1O dt.26.11.2013 and W.P.No.16379 of 2011 dt.18.O4.2012 bg passing frnal orders on the representation dt.13.O7.2023 which is pendtng uith 3d respondent and to pass..."
t:}
't:1'1 ..i
2
Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4
Icarned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent ", Nos.2 to 4 submits that respondent No.3 will consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.OT.2O23 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
3
\
6, Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective counsel, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation filed by the epetitioner, dated 13.O7.2O23 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR { SECTION OFFICER
LS b
E
HIGH COURT
DATED: OGlO3l2O24
i r'.l: 'J
a
\a
t' r.<br>I -) 1 I [/rn 2I]2{ :t
ORDER
WP.No.5978 ot 2024
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS (gd'W
P Rq1u, S./o. Narsaiah
State of Telangana
Vice Chairman and Managing Director, TSRTC
Regional Manager, TSRTC Nalgonda Region
Depot Manager, TSRTC, Yadagirigutta Bus Depot
Pulla Karthik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
