G.Seetharamaiah, And 2 Others v. The Md., Ap Power Generation Corpn Ltd., And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 12062 of 2007 BETWEEN G.Seetharamaiah and others ... PETITIONERS AND The Managing Director, A.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad and another ...RESPONDENT Date of Order pronounced: 23.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:-

This court had occasion to consider the issue arising in this writ petition earlier in W.P.No.2179 of 2006. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 19.11.2010. W.A.No.37 of 2012 was filed against the said order and by common order dated 22.04.2015 passed in W.A.No.37 of 2012 and W.A.No.165 of 2012, a Division Bench of this court disposed of the appeals as infructuous. A copy of the said order is placed on record and reflects that the Division Bench held that disposal of W.A.No.37 of 2012 would not prevent the appellants therein from raising all contentions that were open to them in the writ petitions which were pending before this court on the same issue.

2. Ms. S. Madhavi, learned counsel appearing for Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the respondents in this writ petition, was therefore asked as to whether there were any grounds which require to be urged in this writ petition which would set the petitioners herein on a different footing as compared to the petitioners in W.P.No.2179 of 2006.

3. Having perused the judgments and the record of this case, Ms. S. Madhavi, learned counsel, fairly conceded before this court that the matter is squarely covered by the earlier adjudication of this court in W.P.No.2179 of 2006.

4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by this court in W.P.No.2179 of 2006 and for reasons alike as were motioned therein.

The respondents shall consequently extend the benefits of B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998 to the petitioners notwithstanding their absorption in service on a later date.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 23, 2015 Lmv