Disposed

M Madhusudhana Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2024WP/14957/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of a promotion claim due to pending departmental proceedings, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's case for promotion based on G.O.Ms. No. 257 dated 10-06-1999 without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to Deputy Executive Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 257 dated 10-06-1999 if qualified, and to conclude inquiry.

M Madhusudhana Rao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14957 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

M Madhusudhana Rao, S/o. M.Malakondaiah, aged 59 years, Occ; Assistant Engineer, O/o The Assistant Engineer, AP State Housing Corporation Chillakur (V) and (M), SPSR Nellore District Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, AP State Housing Corporation Limited Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶11

The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Nirman Bhavan, Plot Nos.11 and 12 APIIC Colony, Autonagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District 520 007,.. Andhra Pradesh. Rep.by its Managing Director

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the genuine claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, though the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified, on the untenable ground that the departmental proceedings initiated vide charge memo bearing G.O.Rt 46 Housing (Vig. Cell) Department dated 11-05-2018 of the 1®‘ respondent and^alsomemovide

¶14

Rc.No 3040/V3/SPSR-NLR/2022 dated 30-10-2023 of the 2nd respondent are pending is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms No 257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 10-06-1999 and also without reference to memo No 3040A/3/SPSR-NLR/2022 dated 30-10-2023 of the 2nd respondent

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer^{intermsofG.O.MsNo} 257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated^{10-06-1999andalso} without reference to memo No 3040A/3/SPSR-NLR/2022 dated 30-10-2023 of the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR SERVICES I

¶19

The Court made the following: Order

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.14957 OF 2024

¶24

M.Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.M.Malakondaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ: Assistant Engineer, O/o The Assistant Engineer, AP State Housing corporation, Chilakur (V) & (M), SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, AP State Housing Corporation Limited, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and another.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner Smt Kavitha Gottipati

¶26

Counsel for respondents QP for Services-IV and Sri '^V.Jagannadha Rao, SC for R-2

¶27

:: ORDER

¶28

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶29

“...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the action^of the respondents in not considering the genuine claim of

SRS, J wp_14957_2024

the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy^Executive Engineer, though the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified, on the untenable ground that the departmental proceedings initiated vide charge memo bearing G.O.Rt.No.46 Housing (Vig.Cell) Department, dated 11 05.2018 of the 1®' respondent and also memo vide RC.NO.3040A/3/SPSR-NLR/2022 dated 30.10.2023 of the 2^^ respondent are pending is illegal, arbitrary and^unjust and consequently direct the respondents to consider^the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 10.06.1999^and also without reference to memo No.3040A/3/SPSRNLR/2022 dated 30.10.2023 of the 2"^^ respondent and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and properⁱⁿ the circumstances of the case”.

¶34

Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the^{petitioner,Sri} Y.B.Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for^{Services-lVfor} respondent No.1, and Sri Sajid, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Jagannadha Rao, learned Standing counsel for respondent^No.2. 3. Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.46 Housing (Vig.Cell)^Department, dated 11.05.2018 was issued to the petitioner. The^{petitionersubmitted} the explanation on 26.07.2018. An Inquiry Officer was appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,^{infact,theinquiry} was completed and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report^torespondent

SRS, J wp_14957_2024

I.' ( \

No.2. However, respondent No.2 did not pass the order^ontheinquiry report. The authorities, in view of the pendency of^{charges,onanearlier} occasion also, did not promote the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5022 of 2021, and the same was disposed of on 08.04.2021 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. Later the petitioner was promoted and also^{grantednotional} seniority.

¶39

The petitioner, now, is eligible for promotion to the^postofDeputy Executive Engineer. However, in view of the pendency^{ofthecharges,} the case of the petitioner is not being considered^{forpromotion.}

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, per^contra,would submit that the Department of Promotion Committee is^{notconstituted.} If the petitioner is eligible, his case for promotion^{willbeconsideredinterms} of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.

¶41

Given the facts and circumstances, without touching^themeritsof the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the^{admissionstagewiththe} consent of both the learned counsel directing respondent No.2 to

¶42

¶43

SRS, J wp_l4957_2024

¶44

in terms of of the petitioner for promotion consider the case petitioner satisfies required dated 10.06.1999 if the G.O.Ms.No.257 also conclude the inquiry No.2 shall qualification. Respondent initiated vide G.O.Rt.No,46 Housing (Vig.Cell) Department, proceedings o.Ms.No.91 General Administration terms of G. dated 11.05.2018 in 09.2022. No order as to costs. (SER.C) Department, dated 12

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

Sd/- J SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECT^SfToFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

AP State Housing Corporation Limited

¶50

1 The Principal Secretary, r^, . Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶51

2 The Managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation^{Ltd.,.Nirrnan} Bhavan, Plot Nos.11 and 12 APIIC Colony, Autonagar,^Vijayawada Krishna District 520 007, Andhra Pradesh.

¶52

One CC to SRI KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Advocate (OPUC)

¶53

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶54

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 23/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.14957 of 2024

I 0 9 JAN 2C:5
m
^ . Current Section

¶60

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION AT NO COSTS

M Madhusudhana Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Madhusudhana Rao 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

N Vara Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T Ramyamani Vs the Special Chief Secretary to Govt

Sri Sakalabattula Neelakanteswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

MD Ismail Khan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. M. Devadasu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kalingiri Naganna, Vs The State of A.P.