High Court for State of TelanganaWP/21178/2015disposed of no costs

K Rajender Reddy, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,

2015-07-10C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21178 of 2015 Date:10.07.2015 Between:

K.Rajender Reddy, S/o Agareddy ..... Petitioner And:

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, repts by its VC and MD, Hyderabad and two others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Govinda Rajulu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.Ravi Kumar For Sri A.Ravi Babu The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting promotional increment to the petitioner in respect of the post of Hammarman as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner pleaded that he was appointed as Shramic in respondent No.1-Corporation on 01.10.1992 and that he was promoted as Hammarman in the year 2008 and was again given another promotion as Trimmer,

Grade-II on 30.5.2014.

The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was given the promotional increment in the post of Trimmer, he was denied such an increment in respect of the post of Hammarman.

Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel representing Sri A.Ravi Babu, the learned counsel for the respondents.

The averments in the affidavit show that the petitioner has made a representation to respondent No.2 on 15.10.2014 for sanction of the promotional increment in respect of the post of Hammarman. However, no acknowledgment in proof of the said representation is filed.

Inasmuch as, before this Court entertains the dispute for adjudication on merits, it is necessary for the respondents to apply their mind and take a decision on the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2. Within two months of receipt of such representation, respondent No.2 shall consider the same, pass an appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such communication, he shall be free to avail a fresh remedy.

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.27291 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 10th July, 2015 DR