Telangana High Court
WP/14446/1999 of Gopu Somaiah, Vs The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., on 26 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14446 of 1999 Between: Gopu Somaiah, S/o. Mallaiah Ex-Casual Labour, A.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.14446 of 1999
Between:
Gopu Somaiah, S/o. Mallaiah Ex-Casual Labour, A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., (APSEB) Warangal.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Engineer, (O&M), (APSEB)
Warangal.
2 The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Director more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondentsin not considering the case of the petitioner for absorption as perB.P.Ms.No. 36 dt. 18-5-97, though the petitioner is fully qualified andeligible, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of theConstitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to absorbthe petitioner in to respondent organization services as per B.P.Ms.No.36 dt.18-5-97 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner forabsorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, as illegal andarbitrary.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The petitioner claims to have been engaged as a ContractLabourer through licenced contractor i.e., National BuildingsConstruction Corporation Limited from 17.08.1978. His grievance is thathis case was not considered by the respondents in terms ofB.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997.
No counter-affidavit is filed.
The learned Standing Counsel submitted that B.P.Ms.No.36 waswithdrawn vide orders dated 30.08.2006 in T.O.O.No.179. However, inthe said proceedings the said withdrawal was subject to the conditionthat pending cases as on that date will be considered in accordancewith the said B.P.Ms.
Since this writ petition has been pending, withdrawal ofB.P.Ms.No.36 does not bar the petitioner from being considered.
In the absence of any counter-affidavit, it is not possible for thisCourt to give a finding whether the petitioner was eligible for absorptionin terms of the said B.P.Ms. or not.
As the petitioner’s claim that his case was not considered has notbeen denied, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to therespondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in termsof B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 and pass appropriate orders, withina period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J