Telangana High Court
WP/24392/2004 of B. Surekha, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24392 of 2004 Between: B. Surekha, W/o Late Sri B.J. B.Naidu, R/o Pulikallu Post,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24392 of 2004
Between:
B. Surekha, W/o Late Sri B.J. B.Naidu,
R/o Pulikallu Post, Chittoor District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep. by Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2 The Works Manager, APSRTC, Zonal Workshop, Padugupadu, Nellore, Nellore District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ, Order or directions, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directingthe 2nd respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 7-3-2003as per the Circular PD.No. 60/2003 dated 30-7-2003 or any suitable post under thebread winner scheme.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.MANMADHA 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.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus to directthe 2[nd] respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated7.3.2003 as per the Circular P.D.No.60 of 2003, dated 30.7.2003 forany suitable post under the Bread Winner Scheme.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The husband of the petitioner died on 16.3.1997. The writ petitionersubmitted an application on 9.1.1998 to provide a post of Attenderunder the Bread Winner Scheme. In view of her application, the 2[nd]respondent paid some of the death benefits of her husband to her.Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent issued a notice, dated 17.4.2001 tothe petitioner rejecting her claim for the post of Attender, instead, the2[nd] respondent advised her to take additional monitory benefits inlieu of employment. As the petitioner did not claim any additionalmonitory benefits, she submitted a representation, dated 7.3.2003 tothe 2[nd] respondent with a request to consider her case under theBread Winner Scheme.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem itappropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’srepresentation, dated 7.3.2003 and take appropriate decision forproviding employment to the petitioner under the Bread WinnerScheme and pass necessary orders in accordance with the rules andregulations of the Corporation including the order and scheme if anyavailable with the Corporation, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above direction. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_______________
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
28[th] December, 2004.
bcj
To
1 The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Works Manager, APSRTC, Zonal Workshop, Padugupadu, Nellore, Nellore District.
3. Two C.D. copies