Disposed

Pendli Sanjeeva v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC25 Feb 2025WP/31066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding merits, directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent authorities and directing them to consider it within four weeks. The court declined to issue a writ of mandamus at this stage.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition disposed of with directions to submit representation and consider same.

Pendli Sanjeeva Vs The Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 31066 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pendli Sanjeeva, S/o. Gopaiah,^{Aged about 6-qYga.rs,Occ. General Mazdoor,} fmptoyee booe. +osoagi,^{R/o. D. No.950, PV Colony, Manuguru,Bhadradri} Kothagudem District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Chairman and Managing Director,^{Singareni Collieries Company Limited'} Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,^Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director (PA & W), The Singareni Collieries Company^{Limited (SCCL)} Khammam District.

¶13

Kothagudem, t

¶14

3 The General lrrlanager Personnel^{lR & PM, The Singareni Collieries Company} Li;ited (SCCL), W-elfare Wing,^{Corporate Personnel Department,Singareni} Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Corporate Medical Board,^{Rep by its ChiefMedical Officer,SCCL} Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem^District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction^{more particularlyone in the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the action of the Respondents in declaring the} petitioner is medically fit for service in the Respondent comiany is illegal and arbitrary and against to the^{MinesAct 1952 and its Rules 1955 and consequently} direct the Respondents to^{conduct medical examination as per the circulardated} 21-01-2019 issued by the^{1st respondent-companyand also per the MinesAct} '1 952 and its Rules t 955.

¶18

IA NO 10 F20²⁴

¶19

Petition^{under Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} direct the 4th^{Respondentauthorities to consider the representationsdated} 17.10.2022,^{04.09.2024 and 06.02.2024pending disposal of the above writ} petition.

¶20

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRICH'VENKATRAMAN}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Respondents:SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL} The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶22

¶23

-7

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.31066 of2024

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri CH. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri p. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Starding Counsel for Singareni Collieries Compaly Ltd., appearing for respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed in the lst respondent Company on 18. 11.7994 and vr.orked as General Mazd.oor in Surface at CSP, Kondapura of Manuguru Area and his Emp{oyee Code number is 405689 l. While discharging his duties in the 3,a shift on O7.O9.2O21 , at abour l:30 AM (Night Shift) at C_11 Belt of KCHP, Manuguru Area, unfortunately, the petitioner met with mine accident and sustained severe injuries to his back and was shifted to Company Hospital.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to injury to spinal cord, kept the petitioner in the sick list for a period of 9O days and then made fit oo 24.12.2021 with an advice to the mine authority to engage lor lO days on light job. Even suffering from pain in spinal card, the petitioner

¶30

¶31

¶32

reported at mine on 26.12.2021 with the support of walker. Due to the mine accident suffering from the pain in spinal cord, the mine authority sent the petitioner to main Hospital on 10.01.2022, wherein the petitioner was treated and kept him in sicl< list for a^period of 9 months. Thereafter, the petitioner li'as suggested to apply for Corporate Medical Board vide letter No. CRP/MED/C /O49 /458, dated 12.01.2022 issued by the Main Hospital. As such, the petitioner applied to Corporate medical Board i.e. 4th respondent and the 4th respondent Medical Board called the petitioner to attend Medical Board on 2O/21.O9.2O22. After thoroughly examined by the 4th respondent authorities, the petitioner is declared as fit for duty on 21.O9.2022.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 4tn respondent-Medical Board did not examine petitioner's health problems as stated above and without conducting proper medical examination on his health conditions mentioned in the^procedure laid down in the Mines Act 1952 and its Rules 1955 ald declared the petitioner as fit for same job and same is illegal ald it is against the Mines Act and

I t

-7

\ \

National Coat Wages Agreement. Aggrieved by the^{same, the} petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities on 17 .1O.2O22 that to refer his case to the 4*'^respondent Corporate Medical Board for re-medical examination that^{he is} unable to walk without the support or walker, but^the respondent authorities have declared him that^he is fit for^the same job, which is illegal. But, till today no action^{has been} taken by the 1"t respondent-Company officials.

¶39

¶40

Learned counsel for respondents submitted that^the petitioner did not make a representation before the competent authority and the competent authority is the 3'd^rdspondent.

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by^learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into^the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to^submita representation to the 3'd respondent^{i.e. the GeneralManager,} Personnel IR & PM, within a^{period of two weeksfrom the date} of receipt of a copy of this order.^{On such representation} being made by the petitioner,^{the respondentauthorities a,re} directed to consider the same and^{pass appropriate orders in}

¶42

¶43

¶44

accordance with the law, within a period of lour (04) weeks therelrom.

¶45

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶47

in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/. 1" TIRUMALA DEVI ASSIS-TANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECflqN OFFICER

To,

i. The chairman and^{Managing Director,singareni collieries companyLimited,} Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,^Hyderabad.

¶54

¶55

The Director^(PA & W),^{TheSingareni Collieries CompnyLimited (SCCL)} Kothagudem, Khammam^District.

¶56

The General Manager^{Personnel,lR & PM, TheSingare-niCollieries Company} Limited (SCCL), W-elfare^{Wing, Corporate Personnel Department, Singarenl} Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Chief Medical Officer,^{Corporate MedicalBoard, SCCLKothagudem,} Badradri Kothagudem^District.

¶58

One CC to SRI^{CH.VENKAT RAMAN, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to SRI P.SRI^{HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL} [OPUC] 7 Two CD Copies

BSR GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2510212025

ORDER

wP.No.310615 of 2024

r(r*
1 l1E SrA re
t
2
d 19 r,r ?[?f'
cL-,
11'...1:tt,

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS GPTT, % -Ofl'r

Pendli Sanjeeva v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pendli Sanjeeva v. The Chairman and Managing Director

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

Kinnera Kiran Vs The State of Telangana

H.D.Rama Raju Vs The State of Telangana

R. Srinivasa Raju Vs The Principal Secretary

Mendi Shyam Sunder Vs The State of Telangana

Devaambhatla Krishna Murthy Vs Union of India

Gaini Sanjeevulu Vs Union of India