Disposed

Doddapinni Venkata Ramana Rao v. The Union of India

Telangana HC2 Jan 2025WP/37088/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking regularization of services treated as casual/daily wage worker. Court disposed of petition without examining merits, permitting petitioner to file fresh application for consideration in light of previous Division Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by permitting fresh application for regularization; respondents directed to decide within time.

Doddapinni Venkata Ramana Rao Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37088 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Doddapinni Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o Laxmaiah, 4ged^{about 47 years,Occ.} Casuai Labour, A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank,^{Edulla BayyramBranch,} Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri Kothgudem^{District, Rl/o. H.No-1 -21 2, Budugu} Bazdr, Aswapuram Village &^IMandal, Bhadradri^{KothgudemO,ll.Etr,r,Or}

¶9

AND

¶10

The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary^{to the Government, Finance Dept..} . Jeevandeep Building, 2ndFloor, Sansdd^{Marg, Parliament Street, New Delhi.}

¶11

National Bank of Agiiculture and Rural^{Developmen!,Repby it-s chairman,} Office at 324, Bandrakurla Complex, Bhadra^{East,Mumbai-u0OO51.}

¶12

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikis^{Bank, Rep by its General Manager,HR and} lT, Head Office, Warangal.

¶13

The State of Bank of lndia, Rep by its^{Chairman, Vidhan Bhavan[Vlarg,} Nariman Point' Mumbai

¶14

...RES,.NDENT'

¶15

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or direction more^particularly one^{in the nature of Writ} of MANDAMUS to declare the^{impugned orders issuedby the 3rd respondentin} APGVB / Per & HRD/ 661 t 2024-25^{dated 31/08i2024 wherein rejectingthe claim} of the^petitioner for regularization^{in terms of the AndhraPradeshGrameena Vikas} Bank (APGVB) regularization of Casual/Daily^{wage workers scheme 2023 on'the} ground that he was ineligible as lefUdisengaged from^{service of the bank is illegal,} arbitrary and unconstitutional,^{apartfrom violative of Principles of NaturalJustice} and set aside the same to^{the extent of petitionerwith a consequential directionto} the respondents to consider the^{claim of the petitionerfor regularizationof his} services as he was in service^{w.e.f 1110912003to April 2022 in terms of the law} laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Writ^{Appeal No.'l 126 ot 2024 dated 0311012024}

¶16

in the existing available vacancies on par with others with all consequential benefits.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularizittion as he was in service w.e.f 11 09.2003 to April 2022 in terms of the Arrdhra pradesh Grameena Vikas Elank'(APGVB) regularization of Casual/ Daily wage workers scheme 2023 by following the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Appeal No.1126 of 2024 dated 03.10.2024inthe existing available vacanc.ies on par with others.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWAOI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s. V.UMA DEV|, SC FOR GVB Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A.RAVI BABU, SC FOR SBI

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE^{PULLAI(ARTHIK} wRIT PETITION No.37O8a^{OF 2ol24}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition, under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof}

¶25

India, is hled seeking the following^reliel

¶26

". ..to i-ssue a writ, ord.er or direction^{r\ore pdrticularlyone it tlv ndture} of Writ of MANDAMUS to decl(lrc^{the inpugned orders issued blJ the3'd} respondent in APGVB/ PeI&IIRD/^{661/ 202425 dated31/08/2024} wlBreift rejecting the^{claimof the pettioner} Jor^{regularization in tenrLsoJ} the Andhra Pradesh Grdmeena^{Vikas Bank (APGVB) regiaizotiotlof} Casuctl/ Dail| wage utorkers^{scl@me 2023 on tleground tlvthe uas} ineligible ds lefi/ dis-engaged from^{seruice of tlebo.nk is iltegal,arbitrary} ' dnd un onstitutional,^aPdrt from^{uiolatiueoI PrinciplesoJ Naturdl} 'lustice dnd set aside th.e some^{to the ertent of petitionerwitlt a corusequentictl} direction to the respondents to^{cotlsiderthe clointof llte} Petitioner for reg l(lrization of his seruices os lE^{was in seruicew.e-f- 1l/09/2OO3to} Airil 2022 ift terms of the^{ldw laid. dolun by thbHon'ble Cdurl in Wit} Appeat No.1126 of 2024^{dated 03/10/2024ii teeistingavailable} uiincies on^pa, uith^{otherswithall cansequentialbetPlits dnd pass-"}

¶27

the 2 Heard Sri Nayakawadi^{Ramesh,learned counsel for} petitioner; Sri Gadi Praveen^{Kumar,learned DeputySolicitor General} of India, for respondent^{No. 1; Ms.V. Uma Devi, learnedStanding} Counsel for Grameena^{Vikas Bank, for respondent Nos'2 and 3; and} Sri A.Ravi Babu,^{learned Standing Counselfor StateBank of India, for} respondnet No.4.^{With their consent, this Writ Petition is takenup} for disposai at admilfn^staSe.

¶28

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submits that the Division} Bench of this Court^{uide judgment,dated 03.10.2024in W'A No'1126} of 2024 and W.P.No.25457^{of 2024,ditected the respondents therein}

PK, J Wp 37088_2O24

to consider the cases of the appellalts/ petitioners therein for regularization of their services, duly taking into account t-re fact that the appellant s / petitioners have completed ten years of service as on original cut-ofl date i.e., 13. 12.2O17 irrespective of the f:rct whether they were in service or not by the extended cut-off date. Since the petitioner st:rnd on the same footing as that. of the appellants/ p€rt^jtioners in W.A.No. 1126 ot 2024 arrd W.p.No.2 5457 of 2024, lean'necl counsel prays this Court to pass similar ordcr in the present Writ I,etition also.

¶34

Learnecl Standing Counsel for the respondents subm; ts that the petitioner has not approached the authorities with anV written request_

¶35

At this s;tage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to permit the pe.titioner to frle fresh application before the respondents seeking regularization of his services and the respondenr,s may be directed to p:rss appropriate orders in terms of the jurlgment of Division Benr:h of this Court in W.A.No. 1 126 of ,),,O24 and w.P.No.2S457 ot 2offi, dated. C,3.7o.2O24.

¶36

6 Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that on receipt of application from the petitioner, the

PK, J wp37oa8 2024

respondents will consider the same ald pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law

¶41

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make fresh application before the respondents seeking regularization of his services, along with all the requisite documents, within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordlr. On receipt of such application from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1126 ot 2024 and W.P.No.25457 of 2024, dated O3. 1O.2024, as expeditiously as possibte and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY q AS NT REGISTRA //TRUE COPYII

¶44

¶45

The Secretary_to the_Government, Union of lndia, Finance Dept Jeevandeep Building, 2nd Floor, Sansad Marg, Parliament Street, New Deihi.

¶46

Chairman, National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development, Office at 324, Bandrakurla Complex, Bhadra East, Mumbai-40005.1 .

¶47

General Malager, Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, HR and lT, Head Office, Wafis?t.

¶48

The Chairman. State of Bank of Mumbai t lr$ia, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman point,

¶49

¶50

One CC^{to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH,Advo-cateIOPUCI} 6. one CC to^{sFlt cADtpiiAvL-ip iUrrrrnn,ov. SO1tCtrORGEtl.Or tUO1R} TOPUCI z bne-ct to^{Ml/s. V.UMA DEVI, sc FoR GVB{oPU-CI} 8. o;; cc to^{sRt A.RAVI BABU, sc FoR sBl [oPUC]}

¶51

Two CD^CoPies, PSK'Yy'

I \

HIGH COUR.T

DATED:0210112025

\ \

ORDER

WP.No.37088 of 2024

r HE 9r4 /4
( j
L
o
I
0 4 flAE 2025
( I
o
'(/
I o€sc4tcq"! * ^+

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

\ .os"a
k^n
\r'

¶63

Doddapinni Venkata Ramana Rao v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddapinni Venkata Ramana Rao v. The Union of India

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

A. Jyothi Vs Union of India and another

Bhupati Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

N.Sucharitha Vs The State of Telangana

R. Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Alekhya Masaipeta Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.v.Naveen Kumar Vs The District Educational Officer