Telangana High Court

WP/21641/2000 of D.Subhash Babu, Vs The Chief General Manager, on 30 December 2005

SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21641 of 2000 30.12.2005 Between: D.Subhash Babu, S/o.late Hanumanth Rao … Petitioner AND The Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area, RG-1, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

WRIT PETITION No.21641 of 2000

30.12.2005

Between:

D.Subhash Babu, S/o.late Hanumanth Rao

AND

The Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area, RG-1, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District.

And another

… Petitioner

… Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

WRIT PETITION No.21641 of 2000

ORDER:

The petitioner is an employee of Singareni Collieries working at Godavarikhani. Hewas dismissed from service on 23.3.1998. He raised industrial dispute before theLabour Court in I.D.No.100 of 1999. While the industrial dispute was pending, hewas asked to vacate the quarters of the company bearing No.T2-164 near Bus standcolony. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioner during the pendency of I.D.No.100 of 1999 onthe file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani. This Court whileadmitting the writ petition on 10.11.2000 passed interim orders directing therespondents not to evict the petitioner on condition of petitioner paying rentsregularly. However, subsequently, by order dated 04.10.2002 made inW.V.M.P.No.2707 of 2002 having regard to the fact that I.D.No.100 of 1999 wasdismissed by the Labour Court. On 12.1.2001, this Court vacated the interim orderobserving that the petitioner has no right to continue in the post. Further, in thecounter affidavit filed by the Chief General Manager, Ramagundam Area-I, it isstated that the petitioner failed to pay the rents regularly and therefore, on 15.1.2001,the company took possession of the quarters. Though the counter affidavit is filedalong with W.V.M.P., in September 2000, no reply affidavit is filed. Therefore, thecounter averments stand unrebutted. As the petitioner already vacated the companyquarters and the possession was taken over by the company, nothing survives inthis writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

December 30, 2005. (V.V.S. RAO,J)

YS

_____________

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead