SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(AP) 554

S.R.NAYAK
R. FAKRUDDIN – Appellant
Versus
A. P. S. E. B. , HYDERABAD – Respondent


S. R. NAYAK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these five writ petitions are the employees of the A. P. State electricity Board. In these writ petitions, they have assailed the validity of the charge-sheets issued to them. Since the facts pleaded in all these writ petitions are substantially similar and the questions which fall for consideration are common, the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 1897 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Watchman on 27-6-1986; he was promoted as Helper on 27-10-1988 and he was further promoted as Assistant Lineman on 16-7-1992. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1929 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Helper on 1-7-1972; he was promoted as Assistant Lineman on 8-7-1982 and subsequently he was promoted as Lineman on 8-7-1992. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1964 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Helper w. e. f. 31-7-1989 and presently he is serving as Junior Lineman. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1986 of 1998 joined the service of the Board as Helper on 19-4-1965 and presently he is serving in the Blue Print Section. The petitioner in W. P. No. 20








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top