Rasakatla Madanaiah v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., And 2 Others

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'

; ;"

", j,C[iffi{lfl [::A N G A N A '-''1{r'Ji,r'5,[ln !, ii,t H,l.R',i Bi,E'

u o PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO:372210F2 021 Between:

$;iilil}ffi ,.jfl?i,ffi,4{5T,iti.iiit,f ","JI" jJ,#T:l8i"";J""ttil ,..PETITIONER AND

1. The Sinqareni Collieries,Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and lr,4anaging Director Kothagudem xhammiri ol.iii.i]" ", "' '

2. The Sup_erintendent of l{i1es, The S^ing^areni Collieries Company Ltd. RK_6 lncline, Srirampur Area Srirampur SO+"SOj, lvancieriaf Oist

3. The General lr/anaoer. flg.Sln.garent Collieries Company Ltd., RK_6 lncline, Srirampur Area IVa"ncherial Dis#ict. T S.- - -- -" ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of my second Son Rasakatla Arun for employment under medical invalidation scheme as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and grant all consequential benefits.

lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the application submitted on 271312018 for providing employment to my son Rasakatla Arun forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.SRINIVASA RAO, SC FOR SCC The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HOI''BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WR IT PETlTlON No.37 f ,l ORDER:

This writ p:tition is being disposed of ot the odmission stoge wjth the consen of both Porties'

This writ p ;iition is filed seeking the tollowing relief : "....... tr ca[[ for the records from the respondents and issue ar appropriate writ or order or direction particutarty oneinllenatureofMandamusdectaringtheactionol.the respon( 3nts in not considering the case of my second son Rasakal .a Arun for emptoyment under medical invatidation scheme as ittegat uniust contrary to law and in viotatirrn of Articte: '14 '16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and grant att con: equential benefits "'

Heord S i A.K'Joyoprokosh Roo, leorned counsel cppeqring for the petitior er ond Sri J.Srinivoso Roo, leorned StonCing Counsel oppeoring for he resPondents.

11 5q5 $e€n contended by the petitioner thot he is o retired Mining Sirdor c nd he hos submitted o deloiled represertotion 1o .ihe respondents ct 27.03.2018 seeking employmenl to his son. Bu'i. so for, the respc ndents hove not possed ony orders on the soid represenlotior.

Therefor :, leorned counsel oppeoring for ihe p,etitioner hod conlended th:t oppropriote orders be possed in the wril petition directing the r :spondents lo consider the representot on submilted by ihe petiti( ner on 27.03.2018 ond poss oppropri,rte orders in occordonce r u iih low.

Leornec Stonding Counsel oppeoring for the respondents hod contendr,d thot the petiiioner hod eorlier filed h/,P.No.6972 of 2021 seeking r orrection of doie of birth ond lhis Cou11 wos pleosed

to ollow lhe wril petilion vide order dqted 26.03.2012 Ond ogoinsl the soid order, the respondenls hove preferred W.A.No.ZSZ of 2Ol2 ond so for no orders hove been possed in the soid Writ Appeol ond the some is pending. Therefore, the respondents ore not in o posifion to poss oppropriote orders on the representotion submitted by the petitioner.

Leorned counser oppeoring for the peiitioner hod contended thot though ihe respondenis hove preferred writ oppeol ogoinsl the iudgment of leorned Single Judge, no stoy wos gronted in the soid writ Appeol. Therefore, the respondents moy be directed io consider the cose of the petiiioner ond poss oppropriote orders in occordonce wilh iow on the represenlolion submitted by the petitioner on 27.03.201 B.

This Courl, hoving considered ihe rivol submissions mode by the porlies, is of lhe considered view thot this writ petition con be disposed of direcling the respondenls to consider the I I representotion submilled by the petltioner on 27.03.2018 ond poss oppropriote orders in occordonce wiih low, within o reosonoble period, preferobly within o period of elght weeks from the dote of receipl of o copy of this order.

Wiih the obove directions, the wrlt peiition is disposed of. No costs.

Pending miscelloneous peliiions, if ony, sholl stond closed' SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANi REGISTRAR ( llt..) /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ll?^:i3[ffi I ftil:..Ylfl:ffi 'sP'Director'

sinsareni corrienes companv Ltd m"-..":,="J'['fitt?ts:uffi;lx:;dl'ss:i,.,?,xf; :fi :'B:$"'vLtdRK'6

3. The General Ma rager, The singareni collieries company Ltcl ' RK-6 lncline' Srirampur Area I lancherial ulstrlcl' L5'

4. One CC to SRl. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to SRI ..SRINIVASA RAO, SC FOR SCC [OPUC]

6. Two CD CoPies

7. One spare coPY NPJ sBol

HIGH COURT DATED:31 l'1212121 I

ORDER

rAE li i4 J $ .f ti^ / \a ::j ij ;: I JAit 2022 :..

WP.No.3722'l <'f 2021 DISPOSING OT THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS TS.