NOW NO ban on compassionate appointments in the Corporation OF A.P.S.R.T.C..= The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.2 Transport, Roads & Buildings (TR.III) Department, dated 05-01-2013 lifting the ban and according permission to the respondents to provide compassionate appointments to all eligible dependents of the employees, who died in harness. Therefore, in view of issuance of the said G.O., the earlier scheme of compassionate appointments vide G.O.Ms.No.687, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 03-10-1977; G.O.Ms.No.545, G.A. (P.E.I) Department, dated 16-09-1979; and G.O.Ms.No.36, P.E.(III) Department, dated 05-02-1993, stand restored and all the applications pending on the date of issuance of ban orders have to be considered by the respondents. In the circumstances, the respondents can be directed to consider the cases which are pending since 01-01-1998.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR


WRIT PETITION No.2260 of 2013


Between:

Smt. Malan Begum, W/o.late Md.Khader Khan,
E.102039, 48 years, Occ: Housewife.
And another
.. Petitioners

        AND

The Vice Chairman and Managing Director,
A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,
Hyderabad.
and another
.. Respondents









The Court made the following:


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.2260 of 2013

 

ORDER:      
          This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent in not appointing one of the petitioners on compassionate grounds consequent to the death of the 1st petitioner’s husband as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds for any suitable post.

The case of the petitioners is that husband of the 1st petitioner, who was working as a driver in the respondents’ corporation, died on
09-04-1996 while in service and while performing his duties.  The 1st petitioner made representations on 07-02-1998, 04-06-1999 and 

04-08-2000 to provide monetary benefits and alternative employment to them on compassionate grounds.  The respondents stated to the petitioners that there was ban on recruitment for appointment on compassionate grounds.  Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 

Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned counsel for the respondents.

It appears that there was ban on compassionate appointments in the Corporation.  The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.2 Transport, Roads & Buildings (TR.III) Department, dated 05-01-2013 lifting the ban and according permission to the respondents to provide compassionate appointments to all eligible dependents of the employees, who died in harness. Therefore, in view of issuance of the said G.O., the earlier scheme of compassionate appointments vide G.O.Ms.No.687, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 03-10-1977; G.O.Ms.No.545, G.A. (P.E.I) Department, dated 16-09-1979; and G.O.Ms.No.36, P.E.(III) Department, dated 05-02-1993, stand restored and all the applications pending on the date of issuance of ban orders have to be considered by the respondents.  In the circumstances, the respondents can be directed to consider the cases which are pending since 01-01-1998. 

          Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.


___________________________

JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR


29th April, 2013

siva

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRIT PETITION No.2260 of 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE: 29.04.2013



siva

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.