Disposed

G. Rama Rao, v. Commissioner, Endowments Department

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025WP/19407/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Senior Assistant at an amalgamated temple challenged the Commissioner's inaction on his revision petition objecting to his placement in the common seniority list. The High Court disposed of the writ petition in view of its earlier order in W.P.No.3092 of 2019, which had already directed re-drafting of the seniority list with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed in view of orders in W.P.No.3092 of 2019 dated 20.01.2025; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

G. Rama Rao, Vs Commissioner, Endowments… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (.SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶5

WRIT P ETITION NO:^{19407 OF 2017}

¶6

Between:

¶7

G. Rama Rao, S/o^{Dasaradha Rao, agedabout 56 years, workingas Senior} Aisistani, Sri Lakshmi^{Na.rsimhaSwairyvari Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta,Fl/} o.2-15413t2, Sri Ram^{Nagar, Yadagirigutta. Yadadri Bhongir District'}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . Commissioner, Endowments Department,, Telangana State, Boggulakunta' Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶11

Sri Lakshmi^{Narsimha Swamyvari Devasthanam, Yadagiriguttarep. by its} Executive. Officer.

¶12

State of Telangana,^{rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, Revenue (Endowments)} Departmeni, Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article^{226 oI lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pi"u."O to issue a Writ or^{Order or Directionmore tn the natureof Writ of} ii/andamus declaring^{the action of the first respondenl in not diSposingof the} revision^{petitiondated 27.o5.2016filedby the petitioneras illegal andarbitrary} and consequentially^{direct the first respondentto pass orders and the revision} petition of the petitioner dated^27.05.2016'

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP.^{NO:2 3634 0F 2017}

¶16

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourtmay be pleasedto} Jirect the first respondent^{to the pass orderson the revision petitionfiledby the} f"tition",^{daled 2i .o5.2o16forth with, pendingdisposal of the above W P'}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. P V S S S RAMA RAO} Corn."f for the^{Respondents: Ms. B.N.SAILAJA, AGP FORENDOWMENTS} The Court made^{the following:OROER.}

¶18

) 1 l I

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.l94O7 of 2OL7 ORDER:

¶21

The case of the petitioner, precisely, is that he is a Senior Assistant in the 3.d respondentTemple, and that the 3.d respondent-Temple, as it now stands, is the ama_lgamated single unit of Patha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple and Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, pursuant to which the Department has taken a decision to merge the cadres of employees and prepare a common seniority list. Aggrieved by his incorrect placement in the common seniority list, the petitioner hled objections, which were rejected, and the revision petition frled before the lst respondent-Commissioner has not been disposed of yet. In this writ petition, he challenges the inaction of the 1"t respondent-Commissioner in not disposing of the revision petition.

\ --.l

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Perused t]le record.

¶26

At the hearing, learned counsel, placed the order dated 2O.O1.2O25, passed by this Court in W.P.No.3092 of 2019, which is hled by the petitioner herein about the very sarne grievance. This Court, allowed the writ petition by observing as follows:

¶27

" Since the direction of the Commissioner^tn his proceedings dated 22.04.2014 that in tle matter of senioitg, the staff of Sri Patha Laxmi Narasimha Sutamguari Deuasthnnam, Pathagutta shall take last place in the respectiue cadres as on the date of their promotion, is not challenged, the same had attained finalitg. Th.erefore, petitioner is to be shoun in the senioritg li.st of Senior Assistanf belout the emplogees of Sn Loxmi Narasimha Swamg Deuasthanam, Yadagiigutta, u.tho u)ere promoted as Senior Assistants on or before 26.09.2004. TIE Executiue Officer, Sn Laxmi Narasimha Swamg Deuasthrtnam, Yadagiigutta, is directed to re-drafi the senioritg list of Senior Assistanls showing petitioner belout the emplogees of Si Laxmi Narasimha Sutamg Deuasthanam, Yadagirigutta, utho Luere promoted as -- -- Senior Assisfant on or before 26.09.2004 and giue petitioner all consequential benefits."

¶28

¶29

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in

¶30

view of the orders passed in W.p.No.3O92 of

¶31

20 19, dated 2O.Ol.2O2S. No costs.

¶32

Consequently, miscellaneous applications

¶33

pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY// I ---. I _.,-.-, SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

1 . Commissioner, Endowments Department,, Telangana State, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶39

Sri Lakshmi Narsimha Swamyvari Devasthanam,, yadagirigutta r.ep. by its Executive. Officer.

¶40

State of Telangana,, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶41

One CC to SRl. P V S S S RAMA RAO Advocate tOpUCl

¶42

Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶43

Two CD Copies

CJP

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 210212025

ORDER

WP.No.19407 of 2017

(; o\1 T H t: t4
o'
(<(-
0 I j Ut 2025
'.r)

( .<br>

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶51

WITHOUT COSTS

G. Rama Rao, v. Commissioner, Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Rama Rao, v. Commissioner, Endowments Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C.M.R. Projects Limited Vs The State of Telangana

N. Ravinder Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Nazeer, (died) Vs Gore Miyan

P. Bichaiah Vs Superintendent of Police

Mr. Mirza Feroz Shamim Baig Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

Siddhardha Constructions Private Ltd. Vs State of Telangana