Telangana High Court
WP/1096/2000 of N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Dist.Coop., Central Bank 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 SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1096 of 2000 Between: N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nageshwar rao, Raidupalem,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.1096 of 2000
Between:
N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nageshwar rao,
Raidupalem, Kakinada,
East Godavari District.,
AND
.....PETITIONER
1The Dist. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Rep by its General Manger, Kakinada, East Godavari District., 2 The Branch Manger, D,C,C,B.Ltd., Nagamallithotha Branch, Kakinada, E.G.Dist.,
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the HighCourt will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the respondents herein in not regularizing the services of thepetitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e., on 11-11-1983,is unjust, illegal, discrimination, violative of article 14,16, & 21 of theconstitution of India and as such set aside the same with anconsequential direction to the respondents herein to regularise theservices of the petitioner from the 11-11-83 and to pay the differenceof wages with consequential benefits forthwith in the interest ofjustice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S. SRINIVAS REDDY
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 the following substantive relief:
“to issue a writ or order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of therespondents herein in not regularizing theservices of the petitioner from the date of hisinitial appointment i.e., on 11-11-1983, isunjust, illegal, discrimination, violative ofArticle 14,16, & 21 of the constitution of Indiaand as such set aside the same with aconsequential direction to the respondentsherein to regularize the services of thepetitioner from the 11-11-83 and to pay thedifference of wages with consequentialbenefits forthwith in the interest of justice andto pass such other order or orders”
At the hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for boththe parties that the cause in the writ petition does not survive forconsideration, as the petitioner was dismissed from service oncharges of theft.
In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Date: 26.12.2008va
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J