Thimmamma And 11 Others v. The State Of Telangana And Another

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.26360 OF 2019 ORDER:

This writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties.

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in releasing the amount of Rs.6,38,400/- to the petitioners, who have worked as Sweepers in Narayanpet Village, Mahabubnagar District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and sought a consequential direction to direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith release the amount of Rs.6,38,400/- which is pending from July, 2015 to April, 2016, to the petitioners with all consequential benefits.

Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, counsel for the petitioners, Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri E. Chandra Shekhar Rao, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

It has been contended by the petitioners that they have worked as Sweepers with the 2nd respondent from July, 2015 to April, 2016, but the 2nd respondent has not disbursed their wages for the said period.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the action of the respondents in not paying remuneration to the petitioners, in spite of the fact that the petitioners have discharged their duties with the 2nd

respondent, is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for release of wages to the tune of Rs.6,38,400/- due to the petitioners, within a reasonable period of time. Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent had contended that the case of the petitioners would be considered if only the petitioners submit a representation to the respondents, and thereupon the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a representation afresh to the 2nd respondent staking their claim for remuneration for the period during which they have worked with the 2nd respondent. Upon such representation being received, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders 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 9th December, 2019 v v