Partly allowed

Paasi Sukhlal v. The Chairman and Managing Direction

Telangana HC7 Mar 2024WP/6151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition petitioning for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent authority illegal. The court directed the General Manager, Ellandu Area, to consider the pending appeal dated 19-01-2023 regarding a major penalty imposed in 2020 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.4 to consider the petition's appeal dated 19-01-2023 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Paasi Sukhlal Vs The Chairman and Managing Direction — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6151 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Paasi Sukhlal, S/o. Paasi Ram Rathan, aged about 52 years, Occ. Security Guard, EC No. 2905882, Rl/o. H.No.Basthi, Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Chairman and l/anaging Direction, Slngareni Collieries Company Ltd. Red Hills, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The General Manager Personal Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Red Hills, Hyderabad The Senior Security Officer, S and PC Department, Ellandu Area, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd- Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶13

4 The General [\ulanager, Ellandu Area, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶14

...RES'.NDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 [/andamus, by declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.3 in not passing any orders on my appeal D1.19-O1-2O23 on punishment order dt. 06-042020 imposing major penalty on stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been illegal, arbitrary and u n constitutio nal and consequently call for the records pertaining to the 2020 imposing major^penalty on stoppage of two increments without cumulative and set aside the same

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents Authorities to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's appeal dated 19-01-2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAMA KRISHNA KULKHARNT REp SRI ANGOTHU NEHRU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY

¶20

(sc FoR S|NGAREN| COLLTERTES CO LTD)

¶21

The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶23

WRJT PETITION No.6151 OF 2o24

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is hled under Artrcle 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶26

"...to issue a utrit, order or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Wit oJ Mandamuq by declaing the inaction of the respondent No.3 in not passing any orders ort appeal dt.19.01.2123 on punishment order dt.06.04.2O2O imposing major penaltg on stoppage of two increments utithout cumulatiue effect has been illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently call for the records pertoining to the 2O2O imposing major penaltg on stoppage of tuo increments uithout cttmulatiue and set aside the same and to pass..."

¶27

This Writ Petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties.

¶28

Heard Sri Rama Krishna Kulkharni, learned counsel representing Sri Angothu Nehri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Security Guard at respondents - Company. He was placed under suspension uide proceedings Ref.No.YLD/SPCI20 /429,^{d.ated 22.l}.2olaand charge sheet was also issued against}

¶30

¶31

¶32

the petitioner on the very same day alleging that^{he had given a} newspaper statement on 22.1O.2O1a. The petitioner^had submitted his explanation to respondent No.3 on 26.10.2018^and without considering the said explanation, the respondents have issued Office Order, dated 06.O4.2O2O imposing major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect against the petitioner uide Ref.No.YLD/PER|22/663, dated 06.04.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal, dated 19.01.2O23 before respondent No.4 and the same is pending consideration. Therefore, Iearned counsel prayed this Court to direct respondent No.4 to consider the appeal of the petitioner, dated 19.O1.2023 and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that respondent No.4 will consider the appeal of the petitioner, dated 19.O1.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶34

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.4 to consider the appeal of the petitioner, dated 19.01.2023 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance

¶35

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. There shall be no

¶39

order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

//TRUE COPY/' ^,,?3ii-?t?t?ffixil,,,,

¶42

,,,,

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, 1 The Chairman and Managing^{Direction, Singareni Collieries CompanyLtd.} Red Hills, Hyderabad

¶45

2 The Generai lVanager Personal^{Singareni Collieries CompanyLtd' RedHills'} Hyderabad

¶46

3 The Senior Security Officer, S and^{PC Department, Ellandu Area, Singareni} Collieries Company Ltd.^{Bhadradri KothagudemDistrict.}

¶47

4 The General Mianager, Ellandu Area,^{Singareni Collieries CompanyLtd.} Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶48

q ONC CC tO SRI. F SRI HARSHA^{REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES} co LrD) [oPUCl

¶49

One CC'to SRl. ANGOTHU^{NEHRU,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

7 Two CD Copies B IVl

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710312024

1-.
,,'. a
c
L) 1 6 A IP B 2 ',Jt tl I
:
o
PATcIi

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.6151 of 2024

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT COSTS e)tu'' g

Paasi Sukhlal v. The Chairman and Managing Direction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paasi Sukhlal v. The Chairman and Managing Direction

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

A. Kranthi Ramana Vs State of Telangana

G.Raju Vs The State of Telangana

K.Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana

G. Surender Goud Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

B.Brahmaiah, Vs The Govt of Telangana

Jajula Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana