Disposed

P v. Satyanarayana v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Feb 2020WP/2709/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking implementation of pay scale revisions recommended by an Anomaly Committee. It directed the 1st respondent to consider the case, pass a speaking order with reasons, and conclude within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's case as per Anomaly Committee recommendations, pass a speaking order with reasons, within 8 weeks.

P v Satyanarayana Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2709 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Services.

¶5

The petitioner before this Court seeks the following prayer;

¶6

“ to declare the inaction of the respondents in

¶7

implementing the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings vide Roc.No.1411/2016/E dated 17.05.2016 revising the pay scale of the petitioner inspite of petitioner’s personal visits, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust”

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipality, dated 17.05.2016, by which, the revised pay scale was recommended in the petitioner’s particular case by the Anomaly Committee of RPS 1999. The Committee has noted that as the petitioner has ITI qualification, he is entitled to the revised pay. These orders were not implemented. Therefore, the writ petition is filed seeking implementation of the recommendations of Anomaly Committee.

¶9

¶10

Both the counsel agree that the date of the proceedings has wrongly been typed and there is no dispute about the same as the proceedings number is tallied.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the counter that is filed by the 2^nd respondent in paragraph No.5, it is admitted that the Anomaly Committee has recommended the revised pay scales and that the matter is pending with the Government. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents, since the proceedings were issued on 17.05.2016 and till date, no concrete decision has been taken.

¶12

The learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent argues in line with what is stated in the counter affidavit but raises no dispute about the fact that the petitioner’s case was considered and recommended.

¶13

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand states that he still wishes to get instructions and argue the matter on its own merits.

¶14

This Court, after hearing all the learned counsel, is of the opinion that keeping the writ petition pending particularly, in view of the proceedings dated 17.05.2016, is not really warranted since a duly constituted Committee held that the petitioner was entitled to the revised pay scales. As can be seen from the counter affidavit, the employer namely the 2^nd respondent has already forwarded

¶15

¶16

the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee of RPS 1999 for ratification on 19.09.2016, but since then, nothing concrete has emanated. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be left high and dry for an indefinite period. 2016 to 2020 is sufficient for the State to take a decision.

¶17

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner, as per the recommendations of Anomaly Committee, proceedings dated 17.05.2016, and to pass a speaking order on the same with reasons, within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶19

_________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

25.02.2020 GR

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶24

WRIT PETITION No. 2709 of 2020

¶25

Date: 25.02.2020

¶26

¶27

P v. Satyanarayana v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P v. Satyanarayana v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Potnuru Sankara Narayana Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Seshagiri Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.S. Sekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandukuri Padmavathi Vs the Collector and District Magistarate

K. Chandrasekhar Vs the State of Ap

Kommu Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh