Telangana High Court
WP/12592/2019 of Bayyapu Sridhar Reddy Vs Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. on 30 December 2020
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 12592 OF 2019 Between: AND 1 2 J Bayyapu Sridhar Reddy, S/o Govind Reddy, aged 53 years,
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION NO: 12592 OF 2019
Between:
Bayyapu Sridhar Reddy, S/o Govind Reddy, aged 53 years, Occ. Electrician,E.C.No.'1703651, KTK-OCP, BHP Area, Bhupalapalli, TS. ...'E,,ONER
AND
1Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and lVlanaging Director,Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500 004.Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500 004.2The Director (PA and W), Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem,Khammam District, TS.Khammam District, TS.JThe General [\/anager, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bhupalapalli Area,Bhupalapalli Dist TS ' Bhupalapalli Dist TS '
...REspoNDENrs
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order ordirection, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the ordercircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order ordirection, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the orderpassed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.BHP/PER/Grv.Day-201816378,dated 23125-10-20'18, refusing to rectify the date of birth from 02-12-1960 lo 12-02-dated 23125-10-20'18, refusing to rectify the date of birth from 02-12-1960 lo 12-02-1966 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounts to unfairlabour practice and violative of Articles 14, ["16 ]and 21 of the Constitution of lndia andfurther declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto February2026 by granting all consequential benefitslabour practice and violative of Articles 14, ["16 ]and 21 of the Constitution of lndia andfurther declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto February2026 by granting all consequential benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directthe Respondents to continue the petitioner in service till February 2026 bysuspending operation of the order passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedingsNo.BHP/PER/Grv.Day-2018/6378, dated 23125-10-2018, pending disposal of theWrit Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO
Counsel for Respondents: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO
SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES LIMITED
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BTE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVITI
o.12592 of 2019
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 being disposed of ot ihe odmission slogesloge wiih the consent of both porties.
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"......to catl for the records from the respondents and issue anappropriate Writ, order or direction, particutarty one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the order passed by the 3.dnature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the order passed by the 3.drespondent in proceedings No.BHp/pER/Grv. Day-?O,tB/6378,dated 23/?5.10.2018 refusing to rectify the date of birth from02.12.1960 to 12.02.1966 as ittegat, unjust, contrary to [aw,arbitrary, discriminatory, amounts to unfair tabour practice andviotative of Artictes 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of tndia andviotative of Artictes 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of tndia andfurther declare that the petitioner is entitted to continue inservice uptoFebruary 2026 by granting att consequentiatbenefits ...... ".service uptoFebruary 2026 by granting att consequentiatbenefits ...... ".
Heord Sri A.K.Joyoporokosh Roo, Ieorned counsel oppeoringfor ihe petilioner ond the leorned Stonding Counsel oppeoring forthe respondenls.
It hos been contended by the petitioner thol he wos initiollyoppointed os o Bodli Filler on lg.Ol.l9g4 ond subsequenfly he wospromoted os Generol Mozdoor ond ofler rendering consideroblelengih of service, he wos ogoin promoted os Trodesmon Helper ondfurther promoted os Eleclricion, Cotegory-lV.oppointed os o Bodli Filler on lg.Ol.l9g4 ond subsequenfly he wospromoted os Generol Mozdoor ond ofler rendering consideroblelengih of service, he wos ogoin promoted os Trodesmon Helper ondfurther promoted os Eleclricion, Cotegory-lV.
The grievonce of the petitioner is thot ot lhe time of his iniiioloppointmenl, the respondents hove erroneously entered his dote ofbirth os 02.12.1960 insleod of entering the some os 12.02.1966.
Leorned counsel oppeoring for the pelitioner hod conlendedthot bosed upon erroneous dote of birth, the respondents ore tryingto retire the petitioner from service. The petilioner hos subm[ted o detoiled representotion lo the respondents lo refer his cose to theAge Determinotion Committee on 07.01 .2019. Bu1, so for, therespondents hove not referred his cose io lhe Age DeterminotionCommittee. Therefore, leorned counsel oppeoring for thepetitioner hod contended thot oppropriote orders be possed in thewril petition direciing the respondents to refer ihe cose of ihepelilioner to the Age Determinqtion Commiltee wiihin q reosonobleperiod of time.
Leorned Stonding Counsel oppeoring for lhe respondenlshod coniended thot since the pelitioner's representotion is pendingwith the respondents, lhe respondents would consider the cose oflhe pelitioner for referring his cose to lhe Age DeterminotionCommittee within o reosonoble period of time.
This Court, hoving considered the rivol submissions mode bythe porties, is of the considered view thot this writ petition con bedisposed of direcling the respondents lo refer the cose of thepetitioner 1o the Age Determinotion Committee within o reosonoblepetitioner 1o the Age Determinotion Committee within o reosonobleperiod, preferobly wilhin o period of eight weeks from the dote ofreceipt of o copy of this order.receipt of o copy of this order.
With the obove observotions, this writ [petilion ]is disposed of.
No costs.
Pending miscelloneous [petitions, ]if ony, sholl stond closed.
SD/-M.RAMANA KRISHNAASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//,iL,SECTION OFFICER
To,1.The Chairman and ltilanaging [Diretor, ][Singarenr ][Collieries Company Ltd ][,]Sinoareni Bhavan, Red [Hills, Hyderabad-500 ][004.]2.inioiieCto, ipn ino [W), Singdreni Collieries Companv Ltd ][. ][Kothagudem']Khammam District, TS.1.The Chairman and ltilanaging [Diretor, ][Singarenr ][Collieries Company Ltd ][,]Sinoareni Bhavan, Red [Hills, Hyderabad-500 ][004.]2.inioiieCto, ipn ino [W), Singdreni Collieries Companv Ltd ][. ][Kothagudem']Khammam District, TS.af6e O"nJtut Minager, [Singareni Collieries Company Ltd ][, ][Bhupalapalli ][Area,]Bhuoalaoalli Dist., TS.4.One CC to Sri A K Jayaprakash [Rao ][Advocate ][tOqU-C].]O;; CC io 5ri L. Sreenivasa [Rao, ][SC ][for Singaieni Coilieries Limited (OPUC)]6.Two CD CopiesMBCVBhuoalaoalli Dist., TS.4.One CC to Sri A K Jayaprakash [Rao ][Advocate ][tOqU-C].]O;; CC io 5ri L. Sreenivasa [Rao, ][SC ][for Singaieni Coilieries Limited (OPUC)]6.Two CD CopiesMBCV
DATED: [3011212020]
rL4vonr.c?(\\vlusi c'l'tORDERFSx,s-ao\6tWP.No.12592 [o][f ][2019],QciJfiH,tt DISPOSING OF THE WRIT [PETITION]
WITHOUT COSTS
),D14