Disposed

C Samuel Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jan 2023WP/6/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging non-consideration for promotion as Town Planning Officer. It directed respondents to consider the petitioner's case in terms of 1999 G.O., ignoring a 2022 Charge Memo, and pass orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider case for promotion ignoring Charge Memo, pass orders within six weeks.

C Samuel Praveen Kumar Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 6 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Town Planning Officer, without reference to the Charge Memo issued by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.116, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.I) Department, dated 09.03.2022, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration Department (Services-C), dated 10.06.1999, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Town Planning Officer, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration Department (Services-C), dated 10.06.1999, with all consequential benefits.

¶5

Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services - IV. Perused the material on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it suffice if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Town Planning Officer, without

¶7

¶8

reference to the Charge Memo issued by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.116, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.I) Department, dated 09.03.2022, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C), dated 10.06.1999.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not refute the said submission.

¶10

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and without touching the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Town Planning Officer, without reference to the Charge Memo issued by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.116, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.I) Department, dated 09.03.2022, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

03.01.2023 BSP

123

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶18

WRIT PETITION No. 6 of 2023

¶19

03.01.2023 BSP

C Samuel Praveen Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Samuel Praveen Kumar 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

Veparala Ebenezer Immanuel Vs the State of Ap

Mallampalli Venkata Mahamkali Rao Vs the State of Ap

T Dhana Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Ch Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V Raj Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sadhu Lokanadham Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh