Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DR. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
C. NARAYANA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners served as labour in ttd marketing department. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners seek representation for regularization. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. authority of the board of trustees in decision-making. (Para 4) |
| 4. directions for submitting representation and decision timeline. (Para 5) |
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not absorbing and regularizing the petitioners’ services as Mazdoors for loading and unloading (commodities etc) in the T.T.D. Marketing Department, Tirupathi as unjust, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to absorb and regularize the petitioners in the last Grade Services of T.T.D. Marketing Department, Tirupathi as Mazdoors with all consequential benefits.”
2. When these matters are taken up for hearing, Ms.Majji Venkata Surya Rachana, learned counsel representing Dr.Majji Suri Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners were given minimum time scale with all consequently benefits. However, the representations of the Petitioners seeking regularization of their services have not
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
