Telangana High Court
WP/5136/2004 of Gollapalli Laxmi, Vs The Commissioner Endowments, AP, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5136 of 2004 Between: Gollapalli Laxmi, D/o Narsaiah, Raja Rajeshwari Swamy Temple,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 5136 of 2004
Between:
Gollapalli Laxmi, D/o Narsaiah,Raja Rajeshwari Swamy Temple, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1. The Commissioner Endowments, AP, Tilak Road. Hyderabad.
2 . The Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeshwari Swamy Temple Vemulawada, Karimnagar District. Karimnagar District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to regularise the services of the Petitioner in the cadre of sweeper inthe second respondent temple by declaring the action of the respondents in rejectingthe same while regularising several other who had been appointed long after thepetitioner as discriminatory and illegal and further direct the respondents to grant allconsequential benefits thereon Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANTHA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS FOR R.1MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI FOR R.2
The Court made the following :
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard both sides and at their request the writ petition itself is taken up fordisposal.
The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is non-consideration ofher case for regularization of services.
However, now it is represented by the counsel on either side that proposalshave been sent to the 1[st] respondent and the same are pending consideration.
It is not necessary, at this stage, for this court to go into the merits of the case.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent toconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services, in terms of theproposals already sent by the 2[nd] respondent, and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order. No order as to costs.
To
1. The Commissioner Endowments, AP, Tilak Road. Hyderabad.
2 . The Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeshwari Swamy Temple Vemulawada, Karimnagar District. Karimnagar District.
3. 2 CCs to G.P. for Endowments, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
4. 2 CD copies.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 5136 of 2004
28.12.2004