K. NARASIMHULU, MEDAK DIST. V. THE UNION OF INDIA,DEFENCE,NEW DELHI, AND 7 OTRS.

WP/20743/2013

AI Insights

The case involves K. Narasimhulu, the Petitioner, who filed a writ petition against various respondents including the Union of India and state authorities, alleging that his representations regarding fraudulent employment by another individual (the 8th Respondent) were ignored. The Petitioner claimed that the 8th Respondent had unlawfully secured a job in the Ordnance Factory using the Petitioner's credentials and that this was a violation of his rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court's decision focused on ensuring that the Petitioner's grievances were addressed by the appropriate authorities, without making a determination on the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 721021 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 16 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N RAO; GP FOR REVENUE; GP FOR HOME; PALLE SRIHARINATH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAPOLU BHASKAR
• Keywords: Inaction; Natural Justice; Writ of Mandamus; Fraudulent Employment; Physical Handicap; Employment Entitlement
• Section: 151 CPC

Judgement Text

". l32s2l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20743 0F 2013 Between: AND K. Narasimhulu, S/o: K Balaraj, Occ: Unemployed, R/o: plot No. 77, {eV91rf91a,Oqgar,. Phase-ll, Beeramguda, patahcn'eru Mandat, trrteAai Djstrict-502032 and permanent Fl/o: Kyasaram Village, patancheru Mandal, Medak District. ..,PETITIONER The. Union Of lndia Lep b.y L!9 Secretary Department of Defence production, Ministry of Defence South Block, New Delhi. Chairman and Director General, Ordnance Factories Board, Ministry of Defence, 1-A, SK Bose Road, Kolkata. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, yeddumailaram, Medak District. State of Andhra Pradesh rep by the, District Collector, Medak District. The Superintendent of Police, Medak District, The District Revenue Officer, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, The Station House Officer, Ordnance Factory lndrakaran police Station, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. fj3!!gO$!a Narasimhutu, S/o: Mailagoud, Rl/o: H.No: 4-30, Kyasaram Vrllage, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry in the nature of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents No.3 to 7 on petitioner representations dated 10-6-2013 & 24-6-2013 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 & 16 of constitution of lndia 1 2 a 4. 5. b. 7. 8 I and consequentially direct all the respondents to take immediate action on my representations dated: 10-6-2013 & 24-6-2013 with in the time limit as prescribed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 2s426 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to take immediate action on my representations dated: 10-6-2013 & 24-6-2013 pending disposal of the main writ petition in the interest of justice. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to accept the VRS application of the 8th respondent as well as not to disburse any retirement benefits to the Bth respondent under name of the petitioner i.e., Kallu Narsimhulu until disposal of the above writ petition. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents not to disburse salaries to the 8th respondent on the name of Kallu Narasimhulu untill decided the present writ. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to treat the reply affidavit as additional affidavit material papers as part and parcel of the main writ petition to provide the job to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI N RAJESWAR RAO, .Asst Solicitor General Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent : PALLE SRIHARINATH The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 1 OF 2020 lA NO: 2 OF 2018 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w.P. No. 2()743 0J 20t3 ORD.ER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondents 3 to 7 on the petitioner's representations dt. 10.6.2013 and 24.6.2013 are illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India and consequentially direct all the respondents to take immediate action on the representations made by the petitioner, dated 10.6.2013 and 24.06.20t3. 3. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. The main grievance of the Petitioner as per petitioner,s representation dated 10.06.2013 addressed to the General Manager, Yeddumylaram, Medak District, is that one Nakkabudda Narsimhulu, R/o Kysalaram Village i.e. the Bth respondent, fraudulently joined in job in the Ordinance Factory on securing Petitioner's interview letter and cheated / the Petitioner and the Ordinance Factory. The Petitioner also pointed out through the said representation dated 10'06.2013 that the Petitioner is eligible for employment under L.D.P. quota and further that he is physically handicapped and had been suffering a lot both mentally and financially for being denied his lawful entitlement by the 8th Respondent fra ud u lently. 5. The main grievance of the Petitioner as per Petitioner's representation dated 24.06.2013 addressed to the District Collector, Medak at Sangai'eddy is that the Bth Respondent fraudulently secured Petitioner's job and indulged in cheating and that even though the then DRO through a clear endorsement on Petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2013 ordered the Ordinance Factory General Manager, Yeddumylaram to enquire into the fraud commltted by the Bth Respondent and submit a report within seven days, yet no action had been initiated by the said concerned Authority till as on date. The Petitioner further through the representation dated 24.06.2013 requested the District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy to examine the cheating done by the Bth Respondent and restore Petitioner's job to the Petitioner I t 3 w.e.f. 1985, through the Superintendent of Police, Medak at Sangareddy and R.D.O., Sangareddy ie', 5th and 6th Respondents herein. \"Para 71 : It is submitted that the Petitioner herein had made a - representation in Tetugu dt. 10'06'2013 thro.ugh the Dist;id Collector, Medak iide their Letter No' H6/81/2013, dt, 10.06.213. Para 15 : It is submitted that apart from verifying the records available with this factory, the 3'd Respondent factory herein also made correspondence with Civil Authorities of Medak District, A.P. Government to investigate and verify the ,ecoiras pertaining to the claim of the Petitioner Shri K.Narsim'hutu, S/;. K. Balraj vide his letter dt' 10'06 2013 (ix.nA) and the bonafide status of Shri K'Narsimhulu, S/o'. Malla Goud, R/o. Kysaram Vitlage working in the 3'd Respondent;s fatctory herein who has been alleged to have chelated and gained appointment in the name of Petitioner ierein, vide ietter No.ts/t000/VLC/Genl/ LDP/KN/2]13, dt' oli.oa.zols (Ex.R1B) and a copy was endorsed to the -pitition\", herein. Further, the Petitioner herein has been informed vide letter of even number dt. 16'09'2013 that Shri K.Narsimulu. S/o. Matla Goud, Sand and Shot Blaster' f.No.4O-1/LMS section has been appointed against Patta in Sy.No.156/2 measuring 4.75 acres land of Kysaram Village and not against the Patta Nos.14g, 34, 274, 275, 21 land of Yeddumaiaram Village as alleged by him (Ex'R19) with a copy to the District Coltector, Medak' The District ,Collector' uiiax vide their Lr.No.c3/2907/2013, dt. 23'09'2013 addressed to RDO, Sangareddy and a copy to the 3'd niipina\"nt Factory hereii requested to explain the matter if any required by the RDO (Ex.R20). Further, the RDO' ia'ngareddy vide his tetter No'83/4001/2013, dt 18 10'2013 ,\"qii\"tiia b prepare the fair counter (Ex'R21)' The 3'd Re'spondent fa'ctory herein vide tetter dt' 07'11'2013 have informed the RDO, Sangareddy that all the relevant information pertaining to the grievance a pplication/compla int o,f Shri K.Nirsimulu,-S/o. Balaraj available at this office has -r'.:=--.:-1 ;:,:- 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3 at paras L!, 15,16 it is contended as follows : I t .1 been made available to the office of District Collector, Sangareddy from time to time (Ex.R22). Hence, the contention that the none of the official acted against his representation is not correct and misleading. Para 16 : However, pending receipt of information on investigation by the Civil Authorities in the matter, this 3'd Respondent factory herein submitting this reply affidavit with available facts of the case as mentioned above.\" 7. The Petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3 and paras 4 and 5 of the Reply affidavit/Additional Affidavit of the petitioner read as under: Para 4 : I submit that all the documents, which verified by all the Respondents in all stages the Bth Respondent i.e', managing the Respondents No.2 & 3 and obtained iob on ground of fraud only i.e., (i) Ex.R9 (page No.79) shows that Mallaiah's land acquired in Sy.No.150/2 admeasuring extent of Ac.4.15 gts., instead of actual he lost Ac.7.73 gts., in this Sy.No.150/2 (page No.80). (ii) Ex.Rlj (page No.85) birth certificate issued by the Gram Pachayat shows as Nakkabudda Narsimhulu, S/o. Malaiah Goud. (iii) Ex.R14 (page No.86) Residential Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Sangareddy dt. 05.03.1983 as N.Narsimhulu, S/o Malla Goud. (iv) Ex.R15 (page No.87) the ldentity Certificate issued by medical doctor N.Narasimhulu issued on 22.10.1984. (v) Ex.R16 (page 88-89) Police verficaition report prior to resume charge shows that \"Nakkabudda Narasimhulu\". As there ls a clause of false information submitted or suppressed in continuing duty wilt be terminated as the Bth Respondent himself stated as Nakkabudda but not Kallu, he himself not stated as \"Kallu\". (vi) Ex.R11 (page No.83) it is confliction of LDP record of RDO shows as N.Narasimhulu, but Employment Card No.3446/83 indicates as K.Narasimhulu, no father name, which it shows that the Respondent No.8 himself got the K.Narasimhulu contra to all the date I 5 of birth record to snatch my employment (the record to be verified when he get employment card defiantty he got only after the call letter issued by R-2 as K.Narasimhulu). (vii) Ex,R10 (page No.?1-82) dt. 03.07.1985 appointment letter by R-2 & 3 issued on my name as K.Narasimhulu, by adding S/o. Malla Goud after the interview letter issued (page No.46). Para 5 : I submit that in this regard I obtained under RTI Act to the Respondent No.3 as per my RTI application dt. 24.06.2013 as whether \"Kallu Narasmul\" is working in the company of the Respondent, he gave anwwer dt. 05.08.2013 vide No.02/0l/RTI/Estt./KN \"NO SUCH qERSON By NAME KALLU NARSIMLU IS EMPLOYED IN THIS FACTORY\". BUt surprising thing is that in Income Tax Department from the company employees of ordinance factory remitting \"Narsimulu Kallu with PAN No.BlOpK 7852L\", which it shown the Respondent No.2 & 3 being prestigious institution of Union Government shall be transparent. L The counter affidavit filed by the 8th Respondent at para 6 reads as under: Para 6 : I submit that the Petitioner is originally a resident of Kollur Village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District and he is none other than the son of my mother,s younger sister namely Lalitha. That the said Narsimulu (petitioner) was adopted by Balraj who is the maternal uncle of my mother. The said Balraj possessed land at yeddumaitaram Village and my father possessed land at Kysaram Village. The lands in both the villages were acquired by the Govt. That the said Narsimulu has nothing to do with the acquisition of my land at Kysaram Village, But with malafide intention had filed this Writ Petition against me to lower my reputation in the society, relation circle as well as my community. 9. In view of the facts as borne on record, that though the Petitioner's representations are dated 10.06.2013, 24.06.2013, the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents o No.1 to 3 in December 2013 does not however indicate the consideration of the said representations by the concerned Authorities and that receipt of information on investigation by the Civil Authorities in the matter was awaited. To the query of the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, if any, orders are passed on the petitioner's representations dated 10.06.2013 and 24.06.2013 as on date, the answer is in the negative. 10. This Court taking into consideration, the present circumstances and the averments of the Respondents No.1 to 3 herein in paras 11, 15 and 16 of their counter affidavit and the specific averments of the Petitioner made in para 4 and 5 of the reply affidavit/additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3 as extracted above, this Court opines that Respondents 5 and 6 herein are duty bound to examine and consider Petitioner's representations dated 10.06.2013 and 24.06.2013, duly taking into consideration the specific pleas raised by the Petitioner in paras 4 and 5 of his reply I I 7 affidavit/additional affidavit referred to and extracted above in the interest oF the lustice. 11. Therefore, without going into the merlts of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondents 5 and 6 to examine and consider Petitioner's representations dated 10.06.2013 and 24.06.2013, in accordance to law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order duly taking into consideration the speciFic averments of the petitioner made in paras 4 and 5 of the reply affidavit/additional affidavit filed by the petitioner referred to and extracted above, and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. To, Sd/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUECopy/t :,i . rr.,.-- SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon,ble MRS Justice SUREpALLt NANDA (for Her Lordships Kind perusal) 1. The Secretary, Department of Defence production, Union Of lndia, Ministry of Defence South Block, New Delhi. 2. Chairman and Director General, Ordnance Factories Board, Ministry of Defence, 1-A, SK Bose Road, Kolkata. 3. The Generar Manager, ordnance Factory, yeddumairaram, Medak District. 4. State of Andhra pradesh rep by the, Distiict coilector, Medak District. 5. The Superintendent of police, Medak District, 6. The District Revenue Officer, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, 7. The Station House Officer, Ordnance Factory lndraiaran police Station, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. I I I I Miscellaneous petitions, if anv. _ pending shall stand d ism issed. I / I 8. 11 LR.Copies 9. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi 10. The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. '1 '1 .Two CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad tourl 'l2.Iwo CCs to G.P. for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad touTl '13. One CC 14. to Sri. Rapolu Bhaskar, Assistant Solicitor General, [OPUC] 15.One CC to Sri. Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General, [OPUC] '16.One CC to Sri. Palle Sriharinath, Advocate (OPUC) 17.TWO CD COPIES 'tB.One Spare Copy AKB d -----7 I / I HIGH COURT SNJ DATED: 1011012022 ORDER WP.No.20743 of 2013 WRIT PETITION IS DlSPOSED OFF I : E SIAT4. (} * O5,Sr:AiC',' ii ,) r: r.!: 11: t L I [tl 2B J o ,\") I 0 Lp ,) I I @ "