Telangana High Court
WP/26681/2005 of P.Narsi Reddy Vs Andhra Pradesh, Power Generation Corporation Ltd,. on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.26681 of 2005 Date:26.12.2005 P.Narsi Reddy --------PETITIONER A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd. And another ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioners are employees of Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, the first respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.26681 of 2005
Date:26.12.2005
P.Narsi Reddy
--------PETITIONER
A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd. And another
---------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 are employees of Andhra Pradesh Power Generation CorporationLimited, the first respondent herein, and are posted at Kothagudem Thermal PowerStation, Paloncha. On 08.12.2005, the first respondent allotted different categories ofquarters to the petitioners as ‘special cases’. The petitioners state that they haveoccupied the quarters soon thereafter. On the next day itself, the first respondentissued orders cancelling the allotment ‘due to administrative and technical reasons’.The petitioners are required to handover the quarters immediately. They feelaggrieved by the action of the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have beenallotting quarters as ‘special cases’ in deviation of the seniority of the employeesand the petitioners alone were singled out in the matter of cancellation. He contendsthat no reasons whatever were stated by the first respondent in ordering cancellationof the allotment.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits thatas a policy, it has been laid down by the first respondent that the allotment ofquarters shall be strictly on the basis of the seniority and that when it was noticedthat the petitioners were allotted quarters in deviation of the seniority list, steps weretaken to cancel the allotment.
A bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that the petitioners were allotted quarters as ‘special cases’. It is not as if the petitioners represented to therespondents that they are the senior most or that the respondents proceeded on theassumption that the petitioners have acquired adequate seniority in the matter ofallotment of the quarters. Be that as it may, if there was any irregularity in the matterof allotment of quarters to the petitioners, the first respondent was under obligation toput the petitioners on notice, duly indicating the reasons for the proposedcancellation. Its action in cancelling the allotment straight away, without giving anyopportunity to the petitioners, cannot be sustained in law and it is clearly violative ofprinciples of natural justice. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves tobe set aside.
Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 09.12.2005, is setaside. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the respondents to giveshow cause notices to the petitioners as to why the allotment shall not be cancelled,duly indicating the reasons, and to pass appropriate orders, after considering theexplanations that may be submitted by the petitioners. No costs.
_______________
26.12.2005
Note: Issue C.C. in three days.
(B/o)
kdl