Disposed

Ambati Upendar v. The Chairman and Managing Director Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Telangana HC23 Jan 2025WP/1693/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A colliery workman sought a direction to the company's Area General Manager to consider his representation for medical assessment of his fitness to work by the Corporate Medical Board. The court, with consent of both sides, directed respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders on the representation within six weeks and communicate them to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to decide the petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2025 in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks, and communicate it to him; no costs.

Ambati Upendar Vs The Chairman and Managing… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[330r ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1693 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Ambati Upendar, S/o. Venkati, Aged about 58^years, Occ. General Mazdoor, I lncline, RG-1, Godavarikhani, Ryo. Quarter No. 2/370, Uday Nagar. Godavarikhani-505 209. Peddapalli District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Chairman and Managing Director Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Chief ft4edical Officer, Kothagudem, Medical Board, SCCL, Kothagudem Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

¶13

J Area General Manager, RG-1, SCCL, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District.

¶14

4 The Manager, GDK 1& 3lncline, SCCL, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 Drrection, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the aclion of the Respondents in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 03/01/2025 with regard to examining the petitioner by the panel of Doctors of Kothagudem, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. in order to declare the petitioner as fit for work or unfit for work, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03/01 /2025.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HrghCourt may be pleased to direct} the Respondents to consider the representations of the^petitioner dated 03-012025, pending dlsposal of Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDRA^RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P. SRI HARSHA^REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.1693 of 2025

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in^{consideringthe} representation of the petitioner dated O3.O1.2O25, the^{present Writ} Petition is hled.

¶26

Heard Sri T. Ramachander Rao, learned counsel appearing^for the petitioner, and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy,^{learned Standing Counsel} appearing on behalf of the respondents.^{With theirconsent,the Writ} Petition is taken up for disposal at admission stage.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t1le^petitioner made a representation before respondent No.3 on^03.01.2025, requesting to refer him to the Corporate Medical Board^{for medical} assessment, so as to assess his htness for working in the^respondent Company. However, no action has been taken thereon so^far. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to direct respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.01.2025, and pass necessary orders within a rqasonable^{period of} time.

¶28

I )

¶29

¶30

PK, J W.P.No.1693 of 2025

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that responde.t No.3 will consider the representation of the petitioner datecl O3.O1.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Having rcgard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into merits of ttre case, the Writ Petition is disposed of ctirecting respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders on thc representation of the petitioner dated 03.01.2025, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably u,ithin a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioncr.

¶33

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs

¶34

r\r

¶35

SD/. A. SREENIVASA,REDDY / ASStsrANr RSFlsrRAv/

¶36

/TTRUE COPY//

¶37

SECflOft OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. The Chairman^{andNilanagingDirector SingareniCollieries CompanyLtd'} Sinqareni^{Bhavan.Red Hills, Hyderabad'}

¶39

2 YiiJ6n,"i [a"?i"ri^{orJi""r,Koth'agudem, MedicalBoard, scCL'Kothagudem} Bhadradri-Kothagudem^District

¶40

3 Xl"r c"ildJ'^{r"rr""-rs"r, RG-1, SCCL, Godavarikhani,Ramagundam'} Peddaoalli District.

¶41

4 i# M5;;s;;;'Grjx^{t a : lncline'SCCL,Godavarikhani, Ramasundam'} Peddaoalli District

¶42

5 b;tb'i;-sri'inimmaraluRamchandraRao,^{Advocqte..toPuc-l.} 6 il; ;c iJ s-ri^{p sr.i Hir"na n"oov(SC for sihgareniCollieriesco Ltd)} [oPUC]

¶43

7 Two CD CoPies

q A--

HIGH COURT

PK,J

DATED:2310112025

ORDER

WP.No.1693 of 2025

l ttfi STe r4r
2 4 rEB 2025 z
.tco a
.L
t I
O5 srnrc s€c-

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶54

WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

(+ ---F-^(r t^r )-t^.\w

Ambati Upendar v. The Chairman and Managing Director Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambati Upendar v. The Chairman and Managing Director Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

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

K.Rajanna Vs The Singereni Collieries

Ashok Goud Vs The State of Telangana

R.Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Khaja Moinuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Soudamalla Cheeranjeevi Vs The District Collector and Magistrate

Erukulla Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana