VISHNUMURTHY CHADALAWADA (.Executive Engineer) 12 December 2022

Hon'ble hc telangana state "infructuous order"

Sir,

I have filed OA no.4042 in APAdministrative Tribunal in the year 2006 as applicant ,Tribunal ordered in favour of applicant and ordered promotions on par with his juniors ,the orders were complied by respondents, subsequently filed a WP by respondents to set aside the tribunal orders.

the hon'ble High court made orders as below:

Hon’ble High Court Telangana State
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.30547 of 2010
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader appearing for the
petitioners has informed the Court that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the
1st respondent has retired from service, thus rendering the present writ petition as
infructuous. 2. In view of the same, Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no
order as to costs. 3. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
________________________________ K.SARATH, J
Date: 02.09.2022

applicant became respondent in HC the above order in favour of petitioner or respondent(CH.VISHNU MURTHY)

kindly reply

ch vishnu murthy

Reply Follow

6 Replies

Suresh S 17 December 2022

The above order is in favour of the respondent i.e., the applicant.

VISHNUMURTHY CHADALAWADA (.Executive Engineer) 17 December 2022

Sir,

The W.P. was filed by the Applicant/Petitioner(Irrigation Department ,Government of Telangana State) 1St respondent is Vishnu Murthy

"The above order is in favour of the respondent" i.e., the applicant / petitioner is Government of Telangana State

perhaps the 'above order is infavour of respondent ' then I will be happy as Respondent, the respondent is Vishnu Murthy and highly thankful to Sri Suresh garu, but what is applicant in your reply ? here 'Applicant is Engineer in chief (Irrigation Department ,Government of Telangana State) awating reply.

VISHNU MURTHY

:

Suresh S 17 December 2022

Mr Vishnu,

You have mentioned "applicant became respondent in HC the above order in favour of petitioner or respondent(CH.VISHNU MURTHY)" in the issue.

Here it is obvious that in the WP, the Petitioner is Engineer in Chief (Govt of Telengana) and the RESPONDENT is CH. VISHNU MURTHY.

As such when the WP becomes infructous, the order is in favour of the RESPONDENT i.e., CH. VISHNU MURTHY.

Please refer your details as follows

"I have filed OA no.4042 in APAdministrative Tribunal in the year 2006 as applicant"

I have mentioned this APPLICANT i.e., CH. VISHNU MURTHY only.

So the order, arising out of infructous nature of WP, is in favour of CH. VISHNU MURTHY.

1 Like

VISHNUMURTHY CHADALAWADA (.Executive Engineer) 18 December 2022

Thanks a lot. In another WP (TR) no.3450/2017 I am a petitioner, seeking DY EXE.ENGINEER to Exe.Engineer on par with my juniors.The respondent, Pricipal Secretary in the above WP(TR) has filed counter submits that VISHNUMURTHY case would be finalised as per final orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.30547/2010.

The above 2010 petition as dismissed infructuous.The above said pri.sec has retired.Now the present pri.sec.while pending WP(TR) promoted as EXE.ENGINEER (VISHNUMURTHY) with retrospective date on par with juniors. not granted consequential benefits which I prayed in WP(TR). The present Justice is in single cour. Asking about previous WP NO.30547/2010 and impunged orderOA of APAT Tribunal order and further ordered submit Synopsis for final hearing, why the hon'ble HC asking all these.however I have filed SYNOPSIS in a I.A along with other materials, awaiting final hearing within a week. Kindly suggest on the above. I am a party in Person.