Andhra Pradesh Court June 1998 Judgments

Apco Technical Employees Union, Secunderabad Vs. Vice-chairman and Man ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD323; 1998(4)ALT391

ORDER1. Writ Petition No.7563 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.6252 of 1993 raise common questions of law and fact and hence I am disposing both of them by this common judgment.2. WP No.7563 of 1997 is filed by the APCO Technical Employees Union represented by its General Secretary. The grievance of the petitioners is that the promotion policy adopted by the respondent regarding the technical assistants, working in the respondent Society is illegal and contrary to the Bye-laws. It is further stated, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that the promotions were made to different categories in the years 1983, 1991 and 1994, but the persons who were juniors to the technical assistants have been promoted and therefore, the persons working as technical assistants are put to a great loss and hardship and in these circumstances, it is a fit case for granting relief as prayed for.3. Writ Petition No.6252 of 1993 is filed by the same employees union of the first respondent regard...

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Another Vs. R. Si ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD318; 1998(4)ALT245

ORDERP. Venkatarama Reddi, J 1. This writ appeal and contempt appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.3634 of 1988. That writ petition was filed by the respondents herein seeking an order to direct the respondents (officials of the Municipal Corporation) to restore the possession of the land in Plot No.4 Survey No.21 admeasuring 136 Sq. yards situate in Walker Town, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad, which according to the petitioner belongs to him. The contention of the petitioner is that he purchased the plot in the year 1979 by means of a registered sale deed executed by one R. Satyamma who in turn purchased the same under a registered sale deed from one Putli Begum in the year 1968. In the plan enclosed to the sale deed the reference is to Survey No.21 and Plot No.4 is not found in the sale deed. However, boundaries are mentioned. Before filing the writ petition, the petitioner instituted a suit OS No.3358 of 1984 in the Court of II Assistant...

Director, Telegraph Traffic and Others Vs. N. Ananda Kumar

Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. The opposite parties in CDC No. 61/1991 on the file of the Chittoor District Forum presented the appeal FA. SR. No. 8140/1992 on 19.2.1992 questioning the order dated 8.11.1991 allowing the complaint of the respondent in the appeal and awarding compensation of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the opposite parties and costs of Rs. 100/-. 2. The appeal was presented with a delay of 53 days and IA. No. 365/1992 is for condoning the delay. In the affidavit in support of that application it was admitted that a copy of the order of the District Forum was received on 28.11.1991 and what happened thereafter occasioning the delay was explained as follows: Immediately after obtaining the carbon copy of the said order, the matter was referred for the opinion of the Director of Telegraph Traffic, Hyderabad for filing an appeal in the State Commission and he accordingly sent all the papers to the Chief General Manager Telecommunications, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Hyderabad on 5.2....

Eswaraiah Vs. S.A. Gaffoor and Another

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD222; 1998(4)ALT234

ORDER1. The petitioner, second defendant in OS No. 13/90 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Penukonda, filed this revision petition against the order dated 30-10-1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in IA No.50/95 in the above suit, wherein the application to condone the delay of 71 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was dismissed by holding that the judgment dated 13-12-1994 in the suit is on merits and hence the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC is not maintainable as such this application for condonation of the delay in filing the application is not maintainable.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that no revision can He against an order passed by the lower Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short, 'the Act') and the petitioner has to file an appeal against the order as the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Act amounts to dismissal of the application ...

S. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Hyderabad ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 1998(4)ALD439; 1998(4)ALT279

ORDER1. The petitioner's father was initially appointed in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') as Helper and later he was promoted as Assistant Lineman. The petitioner's father met with a non-fatal accident on 26-8-1994 and had undergone treatment at Amatapuram, Kakinada and finally at NIMS, Hyderabad. The mother of the petitioner made a representation to the Superintending Engineer for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner in terms of the scheme contained in B.P.Ms. No. 247, Personnel Services, dated 17-3-1989 and earlier orders issued on the subject. The said representation was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on the groundthat the father of the petitioner was having only 4 years and 3 months and 8 days of balance of service on the date of his retirement on medical invalidation ground, instead of five years of balance service as required in B.P.Ms.No. 247, dated 17-3-1989. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the or...