Telangana High Court
WP/17617/2011 of Mohd. Mahmood Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.17617 OF 2011 Dated:26.08.2011 Between: Mohd. Mahmood .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No.17617 OF 2011
Dated:26.08.2011
Between:
Mohd. Mahmood .. Petitioner
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, representedby its Secretary to Government, MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development(Vig.III) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKARWRIT PETITION No.17617 OF 2011
ORDER:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioner filed O.A.No.6775 of 2006 before the AndhraPradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, assailing theG.O.Ms.No.485 dated 18.09.2006 whereby and whereunder theGovernment imposed a punishment of reduction to lower post of TownPlanning Officer in the pay scale observing that after completion ofpunishment period, he would regain his seniority in the existing scaleon re-promotion. The Tribunal elaborately considered the matter anddismissed the said O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed thepresent writ petition.
Thereafter, the matter has been listed before this Bench for twotimes. Today, the matter is listed high up in the list as item No.5. Inspite of the same, none appears for the petitioner and the counsel forthe petitioner is absent. The counsel for the petitioner is not ready toprosecute the case.
The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed for default/non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________(V.V.S. RAO, J)
____________________
(K.G. SHANKAR, J)