Disposed

S. v. B. Anand, v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Mar 2023WP/8208/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner seeking restoration of seniority and promotion on par with a former classmate challenged the department's refusal, claiming illegal non-recognition of his original joining date. The Court, noting a prior remitted case, directed the respondents to strictly comply with the learned Single Judge's earlier order within four weeks without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities to comply with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25735 of 2002 within four weeks.

S. v. B. Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8208 of 2015

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶5

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Art. 226 of Constitution of India, declaring the action of respondents even though the petitioner is entitled to restore the seniority with effect from 07.12.1985 i.e., from the date of appointment, but the respondents not restoring the seniority with effect from 07.12.1985 and not giving promotion on par with the 4^th respondent is illegal and improper. Consequently directed the respondents to restore the seniority with effect from original joining date as B.P.O. on 07.12.1985 and give promotion on paw with the 4th respondent and pass such other order or orders..”

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as Blue Print Operator (B.P.O.) on 07.12.1985 on compassionate grounds in the place of Sri.G.Venkateswara Rao who was promoted as Assistant Linemen from B.P.O. Both the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent were appointed as helpers on compassionate grounds by way of proceedings vide Memo No.KA/U1/D.No.74/85, dated 30.11.1985.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner and the 4^th respondent were appointed on the same

¶8

¶9

day the 4^th respondent was promoted as Assistant Linemen on 21.12.1998 and as Linemen on 31.12.1990 respectively and thereafter, as Line Inspector on 27.03.2001. But, whereas the petitioner was not considered for any promotion as he was appointed as B.P.O. which is a trident category. Thereafter, on request of the petitioner, he got promotion as Assistant Linemen and the Lineman on 14.04.1998 and 06.04.2000 respectively. But, however he was shown as junior most person treating his service as on 01.04.1996 as a helper.

¶10

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking to restore his seniority and promote him as Line Inspector on par with the 4^th respondent and others, on which the 3^rd respondent has informed the petitioner vide letter dated 08.02.2022 that the B.P.O. post is not a feeder post to get promotion as Assistant Lineman etc. and his request for giving seniority was rejected.

¶11

Challenging, the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25735 of 2002 and the same was disposed of by setting aside the Memo dated 02.02.2002 and thereafter the matter was remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a

¶12

¶13

copy of this order. Challenging the same, the respondents have filed a Writ Appeal No.865/2009, which was dismissed on 02.07.2009 confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. But in spite of the same, the respondents have not restored the seniority of the petitioner. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed.

¶14

The 2^nd respondent have filed counter stating that the Blue Print Operator Post is a dead end category post and there is no scope for further promotion from the said post and further stated that as follows:

¶15

“as per the legal opinion of the then SLA/APEPDCL on 27.11.2011 and as per the instructions of the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Rajahmundry vide memo.No.SE/O/RJY/PO/ADM/U2/D.No.1253/2011, dated 28.04.2011. The name of the petitioner S.V.B.Anand, Lineman rank No.17 in the seniority list is included in the DPC Panel on 02.05.2011 subject to revision of review petition filed against the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh order vide W.P.No.25735/2002. Accordingly the petitioner was promoted as Line Inspector Vide Memo No.DE/O/KKD/Adm/JAO/I/U1/D.No.857/2011, Dated 03.05.2011.

¶16

At the time of promotion, the petitioner has submitted his undertaking letter stating that “if I am given promotion, I will abide by the final orders in review petition and I will abide all the above taken by the department in case of the final orders by the Hon’ble High Court.”

¶17

As per the counter, it appears that, though the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed vide

¶18

¶19

order dated 02.07.2009 in W.A.No.865/2009, under the guise of the review petition pending before this Court, the respondents have failed to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. But however, it is also clear that there is no interim order in the said review application also.

¶20

In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to comply with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25735 of 2002. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no costs.

¶21

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

¶22

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

Date : 23.03.2023 KGR

¶24

¶25

278

¶26

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.8208 of 2015

¶28

Date : 23.03.2023

¶29

KGR

S. v. B. Anand, v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. v. B. Anand, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM-1. Vs the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

R Jagadeesan Vs the State of Ap

Tadepalli Tataji Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District Vs Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

M.V.V. Satyanarayana S/o. Late Narayana Murthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal

S. Meera Maddin at Babji, Attender. Vs The State of Ap