Telangana High Court
WP/24409/2005 of P.Nageswara Rao, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.24409 of 2005 Date:26.12.2005 P.Nageswara Rao --------PETITIONER The Commissioner of Endowments and anoter. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioners claim that they have been engaged as Helpers in the Engineering Section of Sri Bramaramba
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.24409 of 2005
Date:26.12.2005
P.Nageswara Rao
--------PETITIONER
The Commissioner of Endowments and anoter.
---------RESPONDENTS
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:
The petitioners claim that they have been engaged as Helpers in the EngineeringSection of Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam since1987 on contract basis and in the capacity of NMRs from the year 1990 onwards. Inthe matter of consideration of their cases for absorption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212,Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994, the ExecutiveOfficer of the Temple, the second respondent herein, forwarded proposals to the firstrespondent through proceedings, dated 31.12.2004. The grievance of the petitionersis that no action has been taken thereon.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel forthe second respondent.
The question as to whether the cases of the petitioners covered by the scheme orthe course of action indicated in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, needs to beconsidered by the first respondent. A Three-man Committee was constituted forconsideration of these cases. When the second respondent has submitted proposalsway back on 31.12.2004, duly narrating the relevant facts and circumstances of thecase, the first respondent is under obligation to take necessary follow-up action inaccordance with law.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to passappropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the second respondent through proceedings, dated 31.12.2004, within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________
26.12.2005
Note: Issue C.C. in three days.
(B/o)
kdl