Telangana High Court
WP/28687/2019 of V.Satyanarayana Vs The Chairman and Managing Director on 30 December 2019
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.28687 of 2019 ORDER The petitioner is challenging the Memorandum No.CRP/PER/IR/C/081/1102, dated 17.05.2013, and its subsequent Circular vide Ref.No.CRP/PER/IR/C/081/139, dated 21.01.2019, issued by the respondents restricting the statutory benefits accrued in
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
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
W.P.No.28687 of 2019
The petitioner is challenging the Memorandum No.CRP/PER/IR/C/081/1102, dated 17.05.2013, and its subsequent Circular vide Ref.No.CRP/PER/IR/C/081/139, dated 21.01.2019, issued by the respondents restricting the statutory benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner under the Mines Act, 1952 and its Rules 1955, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently sought a direction to declare that the petitioner is entitled for all the statutory benefits under the Mines Act and the Rules made thereunder.
The petitioner is the employee of the respondents - Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Keeping in view the working conditions, certain benefits were provided to the employees of the respondents – Company under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder by way of issuing various Circulars from time to time.
The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of following the Circular dated 09.03.2018 and its subsequent Circular dated 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents in respect of declaring the petitioner medically unfit for discharging his duties and considering the case of the dependants of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, the respondents are insisting the petitioner to give an undertaking to the effect that on his medical invalidation, he will not claim any employment to his dependants, which is contrary to the above said Circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents – Company submits that the case of the petitioner would be considered strictly in terms of the Circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents and no undertaking would be insisted while considering the case of the petitioner for referring him to the Medical Board as to whether the petitioner is medically fit or unfit for continuing in the employment.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to strictly follow the Circulars dated 09.03.2018 and 21.01.2019 issued by the respondents without insisting for any undertaking from the petitioner while considering his case for referring him to the Medical Board with regard to his medical fitness for continuing in the employment.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI