Sk.Shafi Ahmed v. The State Of Telangana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.18985 OF 2019 ORDER:
The writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.
The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period from September, 2016 to November, 2016 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and sought a consequential direction to direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period from September, 2016 to November, 2016 by passing necessary orders on the letter addressed by the 4th respondent on 14.02.2017 with all consequential benefits. Heard Sri A. Ravinder, counsel for the petitioner, and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
It has been contended by the petitioner that he is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Hindi and the respondents were pleased to appoint him as contract Lecturer in Hindi during July, 2013 and since then, he has been discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors and every one concerned. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though he has discharged his duties during September, 2016 to November, 2016, the respondents have not released salary to him for the said period.
representation to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent was pleased to consider the said representation and recommended the case of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 14.02.2017, but the 2nd respondent is not passing any orders on the recommendations made by the 4th respondent.
Therefore, counsel for the petitioner submitted that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider the recommendations made by the 4th respondent on 14.02.2017 and pass appropriate orders.
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that let appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider the recommendations made by the 4th respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court, having considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the recommendations made by the 4th respondent on 14.02.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 15th October, 2019 v v