Telangana High Court
WP/9950/2004 of C. Sita Mahalaxmi, Vs AP Transco, 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 B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9950 of 2004 Between: C. Sita Mahalaxmi, W/o Late s. Prasad, R/o Plot No. 64, Street
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 B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 9950 of 2004
Between:
C. Sita Mahalaxmi, W/o Late s. Prasad,R/o Plot No. 64, Street No.2, Srinivasa Colony, Swaroop Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 AP Transco, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.
2 The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director.
3 The Superintending Engineer, AP Transco (N), Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of mandamus:-a) Declaring the letter dated 9-8-1999 of the 3rd respondent and the further action ofthe respondents in not passing any orders on my appeal dated 17-2-2000 as bad,illegal and arbitrary, b) Consequentially direct the respondents to consider my casefor absorption and regularize me in the post of LDC/Typist or any other suitable postin terms of BPMS No. 36, dated 18-5-1997and other circulars issued by therespondent corporation from time to time; c) and pass such other order or orders asare deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.W.B.SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondents No.: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH
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:
Heard the counsel on either side. At their request, the main writ petition itself is takenup for disposal.
The case of the petitioner is that in fact she has been working with the respondentssince 1-4-1997 which is supported by various documents, however, the same havenot been taken into consideration by the authorities, and as such she submitted adetailed representation on 17-02-2000 to the third respondent. The main grievanceof the petitioner in fact is as to not disposing of the said representation by therespondents herein. She seeks a direction to the respondents to consider her casefor absorption and for regularisation of her services in the post of LDC/Typist or anyother suitable post in terms of BPMS No.36, dt. 18-05-1997. Hence, the writ petition.
Having regard to the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner dated 17-02-2000 is still pending with the respondents, without going in to merits of the case, itwould suffice, if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the representationof the petitioner in terms of BPMS No. 36 dated 18-05-1997.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to dispose ofthe representation/petition filed by the petitioner dated 17-2-2000 on merits, inaccordance with law, after taking into consideration the documents filed on behalf ofthe petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks, from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
_________________
Kvrk
To
1 The Chairman & Managing Director, AP Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad.
2 The Managing Director, The Central Power Distribution Company Ltd, Hyderabad, 3 The Superintending Engineer, AP Transco (N), Hyderabad.
4 Two CD copies.