Petitioner sought promotion as Security Assistant Sub-Inspector on par with juniors and a special grade increment in the post of Security Guard. The respondents noted he had attained superannuation and received service benefits, so the claims would not survive. The court dismissed both writ petitions without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ^
PRESENT
the honourable SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 23793 AND 23978 OF 2009
WRIT PETITION NO: 23793 OF 2009
Between:
U. Apparao, S/o. Veerabhadra Rao, SASI, E; 11797, Zonal Work Shop Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
A
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 writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in promoting the y’ Iptitioner on par with the juniors as Security AssistantSub-Inspectoras , ^^^IHegal; and arbitrary and set-aside the same with consequentialbenefits . rend further direct the respondents 1. Directing the Respondents 1 to 3 . herein to promote the petitioner as SASI (Security Assistant Sub-Inspector) on par with the respondents 4 and 5 with all consequential benefits including attendant benefits and difference in salaries and arrears 2. direct the 2 and 3'"'^ respondents herein to maintain the seniority of the petitioner above the respondents 4 and 5 wef promotion of the 4**^ respondent 3. declare the proceedings of the 2"^^ respondent dated 5-2-1998 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the Notification issued by the 1®* respondent.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009fWPMP. NO: 30907 OF 2009)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 1®* respondent herein to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner representation dated 25-3-2008 for promotion as Security Assistant Sub Inspector on p^ar with the petitionerJuniorswithall attendant benefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARUN KUMAR LATHKER
(SC FOR APSRTC)
WRIT PETtTlON NO: 23793 OF 2009 Between:
U. Apparao, S/o. Veerabhadra Rao, SASI, E: 11797, Zonal Work Shop, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.
...PETITIONER
AND
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 writ, order or direction more inthenatureofwritof Mandamus declaring the office order No. E2/255(14)/2008-DY.CPMdated 25-6-2008 of the 2"^^ respondent herein rejecting the claim of the petitioner in granting special grade increment on par with his juniors/seniors as illegal and arbitrary and sea side the same with al consequential benefits including granting of special grade increment in the post of Security guard.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 31155 OF 2009)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2"^ respondent herein to considerthe claim of the petitioner for granting stagnation increment in the post of ^Curity guard on par with his juniors/seniors in the interest of justice. X
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondents: C APPAIAH SHARMA
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
APHC010079982009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23793/2009
BETWEEN:
U. APPARAO, VIZ. DISTRICT ...PETITIONER
AND
A.P.S.R.T.C. HYDERABAD 4 OTS AND ...RESPONDENT(S) OTHERS
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.P GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.ARUN KUMAR LATHKER(SC FOR APSRTC)
%
2
APHC010617912009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 23978/2009
Between:
U. APPARAO, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. ...PETITIONER
AND
THE VC MD APSRTC HYD ANO AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.P GOVINDA RAJULU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.C APPAIAH SHARMA
The Court made the following Common Order:
The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.23793 of2009 is that the petitioner was denied promotion on par with juniorsasSecurity Assistant Sub-Inspector. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to promote him as Security Assistant Sub-Inspectorand to maintain the seniority of the petitioner above respondentNos.4and 5.
< /
3
- The learned counsel for the respondent corporationsubmits that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuationlongback and that the respondents had disposed of the representationofthe petitioner dated 18.02.2008, rejecting the claim ofthepetitionerby narrating adequate reasons for the said rejection. The averments in the writ petition are a repetition of the grounds raised in the representation. Though the respondents have categoricallyissued proceedings citing reasons for denying the relief claimedbythe petitioner, the present writ petition is filed withoutconsideringthe reasons assigning by the respondents.
- That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner hasattainedthe age of superannuation and has also been paid his servicebenefits. The learned counsel for the respondents submits thatthecausein the writ petition would not survive any further.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation andthathisclaim
4
for promotion or maintaining seniority above the unofficial respondents cannot be considered.
- Considering the same, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, Jf any, shall
stand closed.
assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
To,
ERK
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/08/2024
COMMON ORDER
WP.No.23978 and 23793 of 2009
r
1 2 MAR 2025
<9
^ . Current Section
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could be promoted as SASI on par with his juniors and maintain seniority above respondents 4 and 5.
Whether the petitioner's claim for special grade increment on par with juniors/seniors should be granted.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
U. Apparao
A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad
The Director Vigilance and Security APSRTC
The Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram Zone
Sri K.V.S.N. Murthy
Sri P.M.P. Kumar
Harinath.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
