Telangana High Court
WP/11483/2004 of G.SRINIVAS RAO Vs THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR on 31 December 2021
FRIDAY Counsel for the Respond The Court made the foll \lx -,' iJ#:,: I6ffi ,35 l:ls;G,fli Ar HYD ERABAD THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBE RO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE nt Nos.2 to 4: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO, SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES ing: ORDER PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P, MADHAVI DEVI
HIGH COURT FiJ#:,: I6ffi ,35 l:ls;G,fli [Ar ][HYD ][ERABAD]
FRIDAYTHE O THOUSAND AND TWENTY THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBEONE R
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P, MADHAVI DEVI
wJRtt [pEttttott ]No, tt+ag or zoo+
Between:
G, Srinivas Rao. Sio I axmaiah,_aged. No . [about ][36 ][years, ]Occ: Electrician. 225864'1 , Quarrer No D-5'14. r'i'z"i"IxilIIi Emp.urstnct.ri#n, N,andamarri_so4 231, Adirabad
AND
...PET|T|ONER
z ^ l IVanora The rne Generar ManaoEr, centrar njan Industriqr Com pte4, rribunar-cum-Labour, tr,,t.,l. The norO, singarehi fivO-Jia"# colieries j I represented "tco. Ltd, I\rrandamarrr by its presiding Area-504officer,3. The Senior Svslems 23'1 , Adilabad Distri"ct.Aply+ (Slprogrammer). The Singareni Collieries Co. LtdMandamarri-S04 231, Aditabdd oistiiEi.- [" ][-''' ][']3. The Senior Svslems 23'1 , Adilabad Distri"ct.Aply+ (Slprogrammer). The Singareni Collieries Co. LtdMandamarri-S04 231, Aditabdd oistiiEi.- [" ][-''' ][']4 The colliery Manager, KK 5A rncrine, ihe Singareni coilieries co, Ltd KK 5Arncrine, Thd SinsaEr{i corieriei co.ito xa-rvJii'knJri,-H,ri,iiirii,indir"'uioDistrictrncrine, Thd SinsaEr{i corieriei co.ito xa-rvJii'knJri,-H,ri,iiirii,indir"'uioDistrict
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Artifle 226 of the constitution of tndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in thb affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedto call for the records from the 1tr Respondent in M.p.No.16/2003 and issue ancircumstances stated in thb affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedto call for the records from the 1tr Respondent in M.p.No.16/2003 and issue anappropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofCertiorari, and quash the drder passed by the lstrespondent in l\rl. [p. ]No.16/2003, dt.Certiorari, and quash the drder passed by the lstrespondent in l\rl. [p. ]No.16/2003, dt.2B|OS|2OO4 by allowing tiie claim and directing respondent No.2 to 4 to pay thesalary for the period f rom 3110712001 to 19/06/2002 with all other consequentialbenefits;salary for the period f rom 3110712001 to 19/06/2002 with all other consequentialbenefits; Counsel for the Petitionerl SRt. A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO
Counsel forthe Responddnt No.1: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO,ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondnt Nos.2 to 4: SRI J. SREENIVASA RAO,SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES
The Court made the folling: ORDER
THE HONOI.]RABLE [SMT' JUSTICE ][P' ][MADHAVT DEVI]
WRIT PETITI0N [NO.11183 ][0F ][2004]
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 is a Writ [Petition filed by ][the petitioner under ][Articie ][226]of the Constitution [of ][India ][seeking ][a ][Writ ][more ][particularly ][one ][in]the nature of Writ of [Certiorari ][to ][quash ][the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][1't]respondent in M.P.No.16 [of ][2003, dt.28.05.2004 ][allowing ][the claim ][of]the claimant and directing respondents [2 to 4 ][to ][pay ][the ][salary ][for ][the]period lrom 31.07.2001 to 19.06.2002 [with ][all ][consequential benefits]and pass such other order or orders as [this ][Hon'ble ][Court ][deems ][llt]and proper in the circumstances of the [case.]
2. Brief facts leading to the filing olthis Writ Petition are that thepetitioner was appointed as an Electrician in the respondent Companyand was working as such frorn 18.10.1988. On 20.07.1998, the [2"d]respondent issued a Notification for selection of EDP Assistant andthe petitioner submitted his application and was initially appointed for2 months and was further extended till 12.07.2001 when the 3'drespondent relieved the petitioner from the post of EDP Assistant. Hewas directed to report before the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by theorders of the 3'd responclent, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 15689 ol2001 and this l-lon'ble CoLrrt granted interim orders directinginYnuation of the petitioner as EDP Assistant. However, the
petitioner was nallowed to discharge duties from 31.07.2001 to20.06.2002 whenthe Writ Petition was dismissed. According to thepetitioner, he ws entitled to the pay of EDp Assistant from31.07.2001to 20.6.2002by virtue of the interim orders of the HighCourt. He therefoe filed M.P.No.16 of 2003 before the l,rrespondentto claim monetabenefits, but the same was dismissed and this WritPetition was fl ledssai ling the sarle
3. Learned consel lor the petitioner. Sri A.K. Jaya prakash Rao,reiterated the subissions made in the affidavit, while leamed counselfor respondents 2to 4, Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, has relied upon theaverments in the cunter filed on behalf of the respondent Company.At para 5 of the coter affidavit, it is stated as under:
" (5) rnreply to averments made in para -5, I submit fhatcomDuler.t we introduced during the year 1997_9g in thecomDuler.t we introduced during the year 1997_9g in theRespondentmpany and for the /irst time computers wereinitiolly inStald in Area l.T. Department and the r)epartmenl werenot well equld with qualified candidates for the operation ofinitiolly inStald in Area l.T. Department and the r)epartmenl werenot well equld with qualified candidates for the operation ofcomputers.forala entry The Clerical staff available at that timewas nol hayinntinimunt bosic knowledge of computer operation.ln order to coc up wilh lhe t,ork, it became essential to deploysonte Ltf' the cndidotes on tetnporory basi.s to t,ork in Area l.T.was nol hayinntinimunt bosic knowledge of computer operation.ln order to coc up wilh lhe t,ork, it became essential to deploysonte Ltf' the cndidotes on tetnporory basi.s to t,ork in Area l.T.Deportntcn!. lnthis proces.r o cirurlor No. pi MM/2 5/2/9g/5 6. datetl20.07.1998 u.t i.ssued lo dit'lerent unit.s in Mandamari Areocalling opplicions fi'om the candidates po.s.tessing Diploma orCerti/icare inomputer Science.s lo tyork on compufers for data20.07.1998 u.t i.ssued lo dit'lerent unit.s in Mandamari Areocalling opplicions fi'om the candidates po.s.tessing Diploma orCerti/icare inomputer Science.s lo tyork on compufers for dataproce.ssing. A ttal r1[ I 3 candidates among a total of nearly I ] ,000employees inondamarri Area made applications. As it was forthe first time caidates were being drawn to work on computers, aselection wasade and in the call letter issued to the candidatesselection wasade and in the call letter issued to the candidates I
I
concerned it was specificctlly mentioned that rhey will be subjecteclto tests to find out their suitability to work on computers ontemporary basis. Among the selected candidates the petilioner wasto tests to find out their suitability to work on computers ontemporary basis. Among the selected candidates the petilioner wasone and he was deputed to work at Computer Centre for atemporary period of Wo months from 27.08. l9gg. The petittoner,sclaim that applications were calledfor Electronic Data processingclaim that applications were calledfor Electronic Data processingAssistant (EDP) is incotect. For the post of E.D.p.Assistant, aClerk Grade-I with minimum service of 5 yeas as Clerk Grade-lClerk Grade-I with minimum service of 5 yeas as Clerk Grade-land possessing knowledge of Typewriting @nglish) is eligible anclthe selection is based on wriuen test ancl the selecred cctnclidatewill be on training for one year cluring u,hich periott he will bedesignated as EDP Assistcrnt Trainee. Thus the petitioner wasdesignated as EDP Assistcrnt Trainee. Thus the petitioner wasnever calledfor the post oJ EDp Assitjtant ancl the petitioner is nothaving the sctid quolificarion Jir c.ompeting Jot. .;clettittn tu the postof EDP Assistant. "having the sctid quolificarion Jir c.ompeting Jot. .;clettittn tu the postof EDP Assistant. "
4, Thus, it can be seen that the peritioner was appointed as EDpAssistant on a temporary basis and was revefted back to the post ofElectrician and the Hon'ble }{igh court in rhe interim directions alsodirected the petitioner to be continued as an Electrician only.Therefore, there was no cause of action for any relief to the petitionerto pay the difference of salary for the period between 31.07.2001 to19.06.2002.
5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as toCoStS.
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition shall also stand dismissed AssrsrAilrdfifirfli{i* \. ecrrcKcea i/rRUE coPY/'
To,
1One CC2One CCls.ti'ft *#ItriiEi,[Si,g;A.i:8:,f .p,i,"r,?Lo,citorGenerarloPUCl.p,i,"r,?Lo,citorGenerarloPUCl3One CC4ETwo One CDSpa8;',ij re CopySreenivasa Rao, sc for Singareni coilieries topucl HIGH [COURT]
DATED:31 [11212021]
ORDERW.P.No.11483 of 2004
1t:Sr{,\)c14tEB2$2c:t'l4ftJtr*?):/t-ir
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS
b22