Telangana High Court
WP/38583/2013 of Smt. More Vidyamma Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.38583 of 2013 Date: 30.12.2013 Between : Smt. More Vidyamma .… Petitioner and The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad and others. …. Respondents THE
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.38583 of 2013
Date: 30.12.2013
Between :
Smt. More Vidyamma
.… Petitioner
and
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director,Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,Hyderabad and others.
…. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.38583 of 2013
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:
Having regard to the short relief sought for by the petitionerto direct the 2[nd] respondent-General Manager, Singareni CollieriesCompany Limited, Adilabad District to pass orders on therepresentation dated 5.10.2013 submitted by the petitioner within atime frame, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri NandigamKrishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondents.
2. The husband of the petitioner – More Rajaiah died whilein service on 6.2.1998. The petitioner claims that she is entitled forMonthly Monetary Benefits (MMB) or payment of lumpsumcompensation in lieu of dependent employment as per the schemeformulated vide Circular Ref.No.CRP/PER/ IR/S/532/682, dated9.4.2006. The petitioner states that she made a representationdated 5.10.2013 claiming the said benefit. Her grievance is thatthough considerable time has elapsed, the 2[nd] respondent has nottaken any action on the said representation. Learned counsel forthe petitioner, therefore, seeks that a direction be issued to the 2[nd]respondent to pass appropriate orders on the said representationwithin a time frame.
3. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents has no objection to grant such a limited direction.
4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion onthe merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the2[nd] respondent-General Manager to consider the representationdated 5.10.2013 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriateorders in the light of the norms governing the subject, asexpeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as tocosts.
5. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.47955 of 2013 is dismissed as unnecessary.
________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI30.12.2013.MsrTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
30.12.2013(Msr)