Telangana High Court
WP/1116/2003 of SEC. MINI.OF WATER RESOURCES N DELHIAND3 Vs K.MUTHAN on 22 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 1116 OF 2003 Date: 22.12.2006 Between: Union of India, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi and three others. …. Petitioners. And K. Muthan,
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAOAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1116 OF 2003
Date: 22.12.2006
Between:
Union of India, rep., by its Secretary to Government,Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi and three others.
…. Petitioners.
And
K. Muthan, S/o R. Kuruman, West, Palghat, Kerala.
… Respondent.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NO. 1116 OF 2003
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.146 of 2001dated 1.5.2002.
The Tribunal, in its order dated 1.5.2002 quashed theimpugned order dated 9.11.1998 and directed the respondents tostep up the pay of the applicant on par with his junior SriP.D.Burman from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
While Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Learned Assistant SolicitorGeneral, would raise several contentions including that in theabsence of the seniority list finalized in 1981 being challenged therelief sought for in the O.A. could not have been granted. Both SriSiva, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned AssistantSolicitor General would agree that, as a result of the order passedby the Tribunal, the benefit which the respondent–applicant wouldget is approximately Rs.6500/- only. Since the respondent–applicant has retired from service, and the amount involved isnegligible, we deem it appropriate, while leaving the questions oflaw which arise for consideration in this writ petition open forconsideration in an appropriate case, not to exercise ourdiscretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order of the Tribunal as the only benefitwhich the respondent-applicant has got as a result of the order ofthe Tribunal is admittedly a negligible amount of Rs.6,500/-(Rupees six thousand five hundred only).
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
____________________
B. PRAKASH RAO, J
Date: 22-12-2006
____________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
Note: C.C. in one week
B/o ASP