High Court for State of TelanganaWP/26820/2017disposed of no costs

V.Usha Kiran v. The District Educational Officer,

2017-10-314 pages

* I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN * HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO + W.P.NO.26820 of 2017 % Date: 31-10-2017 # Betw een:

V. Usha Kiran, S/o. V. Balaiah, S.G. Teacher, R/o. Amangal Village & Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

..... Petitioner And

1. The District Educational Officer, Mahaboobnagar.

2. The Mandal Educational Officer, M.P., Amangal, Mahaboobnagar District.

3. The Commissioner & Director of School Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

4. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. G.V.L. Murthy ^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for School Education (TG) G.P. for Services-I (TG) < GI ST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.26820 of 2017 ORDER: (Per VRS,J) The petitioner came up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the orders of the Tribunal.

2. It appears that the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 23.04.2011. The suspension was on account of a criminal case. Subsequently, the criminal case ended in acquittal. But the petitioner was not reinstated, forcing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued a direction by a final order dated 19.06.2015 in O.A.No.2687 of 2015.

3. But the order of the Tribunal was not implemented, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. After notices were ordered in the writ petition, the petitioner was reinstated into the service by order dated 21.08.2017. However, the question of treating the period of suspension was left undecided.

4. Today the learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, dated 28.10.2017. As per the said order, the period from 02.11.2010 to 27.06.2014 has been treated as 'no work no pay' and the period from 28.06.2014 to 21.08.2017 has been treated as on duty with all benefits.

5. Therefore, nothing more survives in this writ petition as the prayer in the writ petition is confined only to the implementation of the order of the Tribunal. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the treatment of the period from 02.11.2010 to 27.06.2014 as 'no work no pay', it is open to

the petitioner to separately challenge the proceedings dated 28.10.2017. With this liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.

6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN, J.

_______________ M. GANGA RAO, J.

31st October, 2017 Js.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.26820 of 2017 31st October, 2017 Js.