P. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.16996 OF 2019

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders pursuant to the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent by Lr.No.Ser.II (1)/N4/808/2008, Dated 23.02.2016 for absorption, seniority and lien of the petitioners in the revenue establishment of Hyderabad District is concerned, while extending such benefit to similarly situated employees by G.O.Ms.No.1660 Revenue (U.C.I) Department, Dated 30.11.1983;

G.O.Ms.No.349, Revenue (U.C.I) Department Dated 25.04.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.288 Revenue (Ser.IV) Department, Dated 15.06.1995 respectively, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the 1st respondent to pass necessary orders on the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent by Lr.No.Ser.11(1)/N4/808/2008, Dated 23.02.2016 in so far as it relates absorption, seniority and lien of the petitioners in revenue establishment of Hyderabad District is concerned, as extended earlier to similarly situated employees in G.O.Ms.No.1660 Revenue (U.C.l) Department, Dated 30.11.1983;

G.O.Ms.No.349 Revenue (UC.1) Department, Dated 25.04.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.288 Revenue (Ser.IV) Department, Dated 15.06.1995 respectively from the date of petitioners appointments duly considering representation dated 11.07.2016 filed by the petitioners with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Heard Sri D.A.Premchand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioners that initially, they were appointed on compassionate grounds in 1997 and 2003 respectively and their services were regularized during 2000 and 2010 respectively and they were discharging their duties with the competent authority i.e., Urban Land Ceiling Wing. Since the Urban Land Ceiling Wing was constituted for a limited purpose, the Government has taken a policy decision to absorb all the employees, who are working in Urban Land Ceiling Wing into revenue establishment of Hyderabad/Ranga Reddy Districts. Based on the proposals submitted by the Commissioner of Land Reforms, the Commissioner of Land Revenue absorbed 18 employees. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has submitted proposals dated 23.02.2016 to the 1st respondent recommending the case of the petitioners for absorption.

When the respondents have not considered their cases for absorption, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondents on 11.7.2016. But, so far, no orders have been passed thereon.

submitted by the 3rd respondent dated 23.02.2016 and also the representation dated 11.07.2016 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the 1st respondent would consider the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent and representation of the petitioners dated 11.07.2016 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent on 23.02.2016 and the representation dated 11.07.2016 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 8th August, 2019 rkk