Allowed

S.Madhusudana Rao v. The A.P. Eastren Power Distribution Company Limitted

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2021WP/9564/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion strictly in accordance with law and regulations if he is otherwise eligible, notwithstanding the pendency of criminal proceedings, relying on a prior Single Judge order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion strictly in accordance with law and regulations if he is otherwise eligible notwithstanding pendency of criminal prosecution.

S.Madhusudana Rao Vs The A.P. Eastren… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

W.P.No.9564 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that merely because of pendency of charge-sheet, promotion is being denied to the petitioner who in fact is otherwise fully eligible to be considered for promotion. Relying upon the rule extracted in the writ affidavit and a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25300 of 2020 and the other cases, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be considered for promotion despite the pendency of the criminal proceedings. He also submits in all fairness that the promotion can be subject to the result of the disciplinary case as was done in the earlier cases also.

¶6

Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel opposes to grant any order. He submits that as on date, it is not clear that if the petitioner is eligible for promotion and within the zone of consideration also. However, he agrees that the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed the order on merits in W.P.No.25300 of 2020 relying upon earlier orders passed for similarly placed petitioners.

¶7

After perusing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25300 of 2020, it is apparent that the

¶8

¶9

petitioner in that case was directed to be considered for promotion “if he is otherwise eligible notwithstanding pendency of crime and PRC.” Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that keeping this matter pending is not really called for. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion strictly in accordance with law and the regulations governing the subject if he is otherwise eligible to be considered for promotion notwithstanding pendency of the criminal petition.

¶10

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

¶12

Date : 14.06.2021 GR

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.9564 of 2021

¶16

Dated: 14.06.2021

¶17

S.Madhusudana Rao v. The A.P. Eastren Power Distribution Company Limitted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Madhusudana Rao v. The A.P. Eastren Power Distribution Company Limitted

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramayanam Seshukumar Vs State of Ap

P Subbarayudu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Tenali Venkateswara Rao at Venkanna, Vs The State of Andrha Pradesh

T N v G B Srivani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P Lakshmi Devi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh