Dismissed¶27

D. Vijay Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2025WP/4895/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition dismissed as infructuous due to efflux of time; junior assistant's challenge to non-review of suspension order (Rc.No.292/G/CKM-GMH/2017 dated 29.06.2017) and claim for reinstatement left unadjudicated; Article 226 mandamus petition; Section 151 CPC application invoking G.O.Ms.No.86 GAD dated 18.03.1994; miscellaneous applications closed; no costs; Justice Pulla Karthik; decided 19.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Upon the petitioner's counsel submitting that, due to efflux of time, the cause in the writ petition did not survive for adjudication, the Court recorded the submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. ¶27

D. Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action in not considering the petitioner's claim for reinstatement into service by reviewing the suspension orders issued in Rc.No.292/G/CKM-GMH/2017 dated 29.06.2017, though the criminal case against him was not related to his official duties, was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether reinstatement with consequential benefits should be directed.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

¶27

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition were ordered to stand closed, and no costs were awarded.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Justice Pulla Karthik), Writ Petition No. 4895 of 2018 (D. Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana and others), decided 19.02.2025: The petitioner, a Junior Assistant at CKM Govt Maternity Hospital, Matwada, Warangal, had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional the respondents' failure to consider his reinstatement by reviewing the suspension order in Rc.No.292/G/CKM-GMH/2017 dated 29.06.2017, contending that the criminal case against him did not relate to his official duties; IA No. 1 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC sought review of the suspension in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.86 GAD dated 18.03.1994 and disposal of his representation dated 01.12.2017. At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to efflux of time the cause in the writ petition did not survive for adjudication; recording that submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, ordered pending miscellaneous applications to stand closed, and made no award of costs. The suspension/reinstatement issue was not adjudicated on merits and no precedent was cited or considered.

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLAKARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4895 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

D. Vijay^{Kumar,S/o. Manikyam, Aged about36 years,Occ. Junior Assistant,} CKM^{Govt, Maternity Hospital,Matvvada,Warangal, WarangalDistrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State^{of Telangana,rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, Healthand Medical} Family^{Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad.}

¶12

2 The Commissioner,^{Healthand l\rledicalFamily Welfare Department, State of} Telangana,^Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Superintendent,^{CKIVI. Govt[VlaternityHospital, Matwada, Warangal} District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition^{under Article 226 o'f the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to lssue^{a writ,order or direction more partlcularlyone in the nature of} Writ of MANDA[T/US^{to declare the actionof the respondentsin not considering} the claim^{of the petitionerfor reinstatement into service by reviewingthe orderof} suspension^{issuedin Rc.No.292|G/CKM-GMH/2017, dated29.06.20'1 7 though the} criminal^{case is not relating to his official duties is illegal arbitrary and} unconstitutiona^{I with a consequential directionto the respondentsto considerthe} claim of the^{petitionerfor reinstatementinto serviceby reviewing the suspension} orders issued^{in Rc.No.292lG/CKM-Gil/H/2017,dated 29.06.2017with all} consequential^benefits

¶16

-J^r

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

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 review the suspension orders issued in Rc.No.292IG/CKM-GIVIH/2017, dated 29.06.2017 in accordance with G.O.lVs.No.86 GAD dated^'18.03.1994 and to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement into service by disposing of his representation dated 01 .12.2017 forthwith

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KRUTHIK BANDELA REP SRI RAVINDER ALKUCHI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTTCE PULLA KARTHIK

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.4895 of2O18

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Kruthik Bandela, learned counsel, representing Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that due to efflux of time, the cause in the present wdt pctition does not survive for adjudication.

¶27