Disposed

J Suraj Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024WP/19269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service dispute regarding promotion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion if he falls within the zone of consideration, based on an earlier 1999 Government Order.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion if in the zone of consideration under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999.

J Suraj Kumar Vs the State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

V* '

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO; 19269 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

J SURAJ KUMAR, S/o, J. Viswasa Rao, Aged about 48 years, working as Deputy Director, (City Planner In charge) Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings2nd block, Velagapudi, Vijayawada.

¶13

The Director of Town and country planning.. Government^ofAndhra Pradesh, M.A and U.D Buildings, West Annapurna Nagar, Gorntia, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an appropriate Writ, direction or Order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

¶16

¶17

the Respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Joint Director Town and Country Planning from the post of Deputy Director^ofTownand Planning without reference to charge memo No. G.O.Rt.No.379 Municipal Administration and Urban Development ( (Vig-ll) Department^dated 12-062023 issued by St the 1st respondent is highly illegal and unjustified with a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Joint Director Town and Country Planning from the post of Deputy Director of Town and Planning without reference to charge memo^{No.G.O.Rt.No.379} Municipal Administration and Urban Development ( (Vig-ll) Department dated 12-06-2023 issued by the 1st respondent and pass

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 Joint Director Town and Country Planning from the post of Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning^{withoutreferenceto} charge memo G.O.Rt.No.379 Municipal Administration and Urban Development ( (Vig-ll) Department dated 12-06-2023 issued by the 1st respondent and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MVS SAI KUMAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : GP FOR SERVICES^IV

¶22

The Court made the following: Order

¶23

¶24

APHC010369502024

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 19269/2024

¶30

Between:

¶31

J Suraj Kumar ...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.M VS SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

:ORDER:

¶39

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶40

fl I

¶41

“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Joint Director Town and Country Planning from the post of Deputy Director of Town and Planning without reference to charge memo G.O.Rt.No.379 Municipal Administration^and Urban Development (Vig-ll) Department dated 12.06.2023 issued by the 1®‘ respondent is highly illegal and unjustified with a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of^{JointDirectorTown} and Country Planning from the post of Deputy Director of Town and Planning without reference to charge memo No. G.O.Rt.No.379 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Vig-ll) Department dated 12.06.2023 issued by the 1®‘ respondent and to pass^{suchotherorder...”}

¶42

■\

¶43

Heard Sri.K.K.Raghuveer, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri.M.V.S.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner^{andSri.R.S.Manidhar} Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶44

A charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.379 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Vig-ll) Department dated 12.06.2023 (Ex.P.1) issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted explanation/written^{statementofdefense} (Ex.P.2).

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit though the petitioner is entitled to be promoted, however, in view of the aforementioned charge memo the case of the petitioner was not considered.

¶46

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the case of the petitioner will be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999.^{Learnedcounsel} for the petitioner, in reply accepted the same. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the^Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of both the learned counsel directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if the petitioner is in the zone of consideration, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. No order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶48

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Special Chief 1. THE STATE OF Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Buildings2nd block, Velagapudi, Vijayawada. Department, Secretariat

¶54

¶55

The Director of Town and country planning., Government^ofAndhra Pradesh, M.A and U.D Buildings, West Annapurna Nagar,^Gorntia,

¶56

Guntur, Guntur District

¶57

One CC to SRI. M V S SAI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES IV ,High Court Of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

¶59

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

SRS, J

PPNK

DATED:04/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19269 of 2024

OF AiVO^
%
m
o 19 OCT 202^i Co
^ . Current Section

¶68

DISPOSED THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

J Suraj Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Suraj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R R D Prasad Vs the State of Ap

Smt Gandlum. Veera Mrunalini, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Syam Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chadalavada Jalaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gurram Manjula Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G K Visalakshi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh