Telangana High Court
WP/22290/2007 of The Senior Divisional Signal and Telecommunications Vs U.K.Atchuta Rao, on 24 December 2008
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.21204 of 2007, 22495 of 2007 And W.P.No.22290 of 2007 COMMON O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) When the interlocutory applications were taken up for hearing, the learned
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 GHULAM MOHAMMEDAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
W.P.No.21204 of 2007, 22495 of 2007AndW.P.No.22290 of 2007
’COMMON O R D E R:- (per Honble Sri Justice GhulamMohammed)
When the interlocutory applications were taken up for hearing,the learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that the main petitionsmay be disposed of.
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and thesame, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this commonorder.
Originally, the respondents herein are the applicants before theTribunal. They filed O.As before the Tribunal on the ground that theyare working in S.C. Railways, Vijayawada and they applied for thepost of Signal Engineer in Private Organization for their professionaladvancement and they made representations seeking voluntaryresignation and since the respondents have not acted upon therepresentation, they approached the Tribunal by filing the O.Asseeking a direction to the authorities to relieve them.
The Tribunal having observed that earlier judgment of theTribunal in O.A.No.286 of 2007 squarely covers the case of theapplicants, allowed the O.As. Having aggrieved by the same, theauthorities filed the present writ petitions.
Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material availableon record.
The learned Counsel for the respondents-applicants contended that while entering into the service, they executed a bond to the effectthat they will serve the railways for a period of five years afterconfirmation and they rendered 12 years of service and submittedresignations and therefore, their resignations can be accepted.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submitted thatthe wing, where the respondents-applicants are working, is a SpecialWing where public interest is involved and it requires considerabletime to make alternative arrangements and in this regard,recommendations were also made under the rules.
Inasmuch as it is stated that the applicants/respondents areworking in Special Wing and their services cannot be withdrawn atonce and as public interest is involved and the learned StandingCounsel for the petitioners states that atleast one year time is requiredto make alternative arrangement, in the circumstances, the petitionersare directed to make alternative arrangements in place of therespondents/applicants within a period of one year from today andrelieve the applicants.
With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. Nocosts.
__________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED,J
_____________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J
24[th] December, 2008.PNV
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
W.P.No.21204 of 2007, 22495 of 2007
And
W.P.No.22290 of 2007
Dt.24-12-2008