Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Bala Krishna Murthy

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Feb 2023WP/1869/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the A.P. Administrative Tribunal's order granting notional promotion to a senior employee. The Court rejected the argument that the request was belated, noting continuous representations since 1981, and distinguished a precedent regarding latches to uphold the Tribunal's finding of discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; interlocutory applications closed.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶2

W.P.No.1869 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER: ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)

¶4

The challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of State of

¶5

Andhra Pradesh represented by the Principal Secretary, School Education Department and others is to the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3347 of 2010 allowing the petition filed by the 1^st respondent/applicant and directing the Government to grant notional promotion to the applicant as School Assistant from 31.08.1982 the date on which his junior i.e., 4^th respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits and pass appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶6

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-III and learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri.

¶7

3. The factual matrix of this case in narrow compass is that the

¶8

grievance of the 4^th respondent herein is that on several applications

¶9

¶10

and representations from 10.03.1981 onwards made by him, at last the petitioners herein have promoted him as School Assistant w.e.f. 14.10.1996, whereas the 4^th respondent herein who is lower in rank and appointed subsequent to the petitioner was, however, granted promotion as B.Ed. Assistant i.e., School Assistant w.e.f. 31.08.1982 and therefore on parity basis the case of applicant shall be considered for fixing seniority and consequential promotions from the date on which his junior Sri B.J.Shanti Babu/4^th respondent herein was granted promotion as School Assistant. His representations and applications were discarded by the authorities on the ground that they were belated and time barred. Hence, 4^th respondent herein filed O.A.No.3347 of 2010 and the Tribunal having considered that admittedly the 4^th respondent/applicant was senior in rank and appointed earlier than Sri B.J.Shanti Babu as Secondary Grade Assistant and that he was making unsuccessful representations since 10.03.1991 and as such his request cannot be jettisoned as belated, held that the 4^th respondent/applicant is entitled for notional promotion on par with his junior Sri B.J.Shanti Babu who was promoted on 10.08.1982. The Tribunal accordingly directed the

¶11

¶12

authorities to grant necessary promotion to the 1^st

¶13

respondent/applicant as School Assistant from the date on which his junior i.e., 4^th respondent was promoted with all consequential benefits.

¶14

4. As can be seen, two admitted points weighed with the Tribunal to pass the order in favour of 1^st respondent/applicant. Firstly, that the 1^st respondent/applicant is senior to Sri B.J.Shanti Babu/4^th respondent but he was promoted as School Assistant on 10.08.1982,

¶15

much earlier to the applicant. Secondly, according to the 1^st respondent/applicant, after his initial appointment as Secondary Grade Assistant on 01.02.1979 and after declaration of probation w.e.f. 31.01.1981, he was making representations seeking promotion as B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies) in the vacant posts. In fact he made representation dated 10.03.1981 and thereafter also he made several representations. The respondents in the O.A. did not deny the said fact and therefore the Tribunal held that the applicant was making representations since 1981 but without passing any orders on his applications, the respondents now seeks to argue that his request was badly delayed and cannot be considered.

¶16

¶17

Basing on the above observations, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the authorities to grant notional promotion to the applicant as School Assistant and with all consequential benefits with effect from the date on which his junior i.e., 4^th respondent was promoted as School Assistant.

¶18

5. Having heard the matter, perused the order impugned, we find no illegality or irregularity therein. When the 1^st respondent herein is admittedly senior to the 4^th respondent in the selection rank as well as on date of appointment, there is no law or logic in granting promotion to the 4^th respondent as School Assistant in the year 1982 but denying the promotion to the 1^st respondent. It is nobody’s case that during the relevant period when 4^th respondent was promoted as School Assistant, the 1^st respondent was facing any departmental enquiry or undergoing any punishment rendering himself ineligible for promotion. Therefore, the act of Writ Petitioners in not conferring the benefit of promotion to the 1^st respondent in the year 1982 either prior or along with 4^th respondent is a clear discrimination among the equals which is unjust and illegal. Then the faint and preposterous

¶19

¶20

argument of the petitioners that the request of the 1^st respondent seeking promotion was a belated one is concerned, it has no legs to stand, in as much as, immediately after declaration of his probation w.e.f. 31.01.1981, the 1^st respondent had started making representations seeking promotion as B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies) in the vacant posts. He made a representation on 10.03.1981 which was not disputed by the petitioners. It is only after successive representations, at last he was promoted as School Assistant on 14.10.1996. Therefore, his request cannot be said to be a belated or a time barred one. The judgment in B.S.Bajwa and others Vs. State of

¶21

Punjab and others¹ relied upon by the petitioners can be distinguished on facts. In that case the petitioners having fully known that their juniors were promoted before them kept silent at least for a decade and then made representations, which were ultimately turned down by the authorities. Hon’ble Apex Court found fault with the delayed attitude of the petitioners and held as follows:

¶22

7. xxxx “The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of latches because the grievance made by B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they

¶23

1 (1998) 2 SCC 523

¶24

¶25

were all along treated as junior to the other aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystallized which ought not to have been re-opened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the others were promoted before B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta and this position was known to B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition.”

¶26

6. However, the facts in our case are different and the 1^st respondent cannot be criticized that he belatedly applied for promotion.

¶27

7. We find no merits in the petitioners’ case and the Writ Petition

¶28

is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶29

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

_________________________

¶31

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶32

__________________________

¶33

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J

¶34

01.02.2023 NNN

¶35

¶36

HON’BL SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶37

AND

¶38

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶39

W.P.No.1869 OF 2011

¶40

01.02.2023

¶41

NNN

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Bala Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Bala Krishna Murthy

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

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sk Nooruddin

Battula Jyothi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Padmavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

R.Vishnu Kumar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Vinjam Srinivasa Rao Vs Union of India

Gurram Sujatha, Vs Authorised Officer SBI