Dismissed

Nakka Subramanyam, Chittoor District v. Dy. Gm, Andhra Bank, Chittoor District and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2024WP/28064/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former temporary sub staff member of Andhra Bank seeking reinstatement. The petitioner challenged his deletion from the staff panel due to non-attendance and claimed extenuating personal circumstances. The court held that the petitioner failed to report duty within the prescribed time and failed to file explanations for his absence, deeming the petit

What did the court decide?

The petition for reinstatement and declaration of entitlement to consequential benefits was dismissed. No order as to costs.

Nakka Subramanyam, Chittoor District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28064 OF 2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nakka Subramanyam, S/o. Late Krishnaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Ex. Sub Staff, Andhra Bank, Sri Venkateshwara Oriental College Branch, K.T. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, R/o. Narsingapuram, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The Deputy General Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶13

The Chief Manager (I.R.), Head Office, Andhra Bank, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank,^HeadOffice Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

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 in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Lr.No. 666/3/2960, dated 26-12-

¶17

2012 and Lr.No. 666/40/SCT/170, dated 17-1-201:3 issued by the Human Resource Department, Head Office, Andhra Bank, Hyderabad^and H.O. Lr.No. 666/20/NV/TSS/SC/1310, dated 3-11-2008 (not communicated to ^ itaerpetitioner and referred in Letter dated 17-1-2013)^{andquashthesame} /J||j|M^onsequently declare that the petitioner is^{entitledforreinstatementto} SJlV ^Temporary Sub Staff in Andhra Pradesh, Tirupathi Zone,^with all ' ^ ' consequential benefits. ■■•V •

¶18

LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 36389 OF 2015^

¶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 applicant for reinstatement as Temporary sub staff in Andhra Bank, Tirupathi Zone without reference to H.O. Lr. NO. 666/20/NV/TSS/SC/1310,^dated 3-112008 (not communicated to the petitioner and referred in letter dated 17-12013).

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR AB)

¶22

The Court made the following order:

¶23

¶24

APHC010139742015

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH S:*B Kfe;AT AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

[3333]

¶28

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

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 28064/2015

¶32

Between:

¶33

Nakka Subramanyam, Chittoor District

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

Dy Gm Andhra Bank Chittoor District 2 Others and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.VR REDDY KOWURI

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

K LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR AB)

¶42

2.K LAXMINARAYANA

¶43

The Court made the following Order:

¶44

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof}

¶45

India seeking the following relief;-

¶46

issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari caiiing for the records relating to Lr.No.666/3/2960 dated 26.12.2012^{andLr.No.666/40/SCT/170} dated 17.1.2013 issued by the Human Resource Department^{HeadOfficeAndhra} Bank Hyderabad and H.O.Lr.No 666/20/NV/TSS/SC/1310 dated 31.1.2008 (not communicated to the petitioner and referred in Letter dated 17.1.2013 and quash the same and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement to duty

¶47

¶48

as Temporary Sub Staff in Andhra Pradesh Tirupathi^Zonewith all consequential benefits and pass...."

¶49

The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Lr.No.666/3/2960 dated 26.12.2012 and Lr.No.666/40/SCT/170 dated 17.1.2013 issued by the respondent -Andhra Bank, Cyberabad,^Hyderabad, whereby the name of the petitioner is deleted from^{thepaneloftemporary} sub-staff from Tirupathi Zone.

¶50

The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to the^{SCcommunityand} he was selected in the interview conducted by the respondent bank in the year 1988 and was appointed as temporary sub staff by virtue of order dated 29.07.1992. The petitioner worked in various branches of Andhra Bank in Tirupathi zone from 1992 to 2006. During the above^{saidperiod,herendered} unblemished services to the respondent-bank. While^{thematterstoodthus,} during the year 2006, as his wife fell sick and as^{therewasnoonetolookafter} her welfare, the petitioner shifted his residence to his native place i.e., Narasingapuram, where he performed the marriage of^{hiselderdaughter,who} is also residing there to look after the welfare of^{hiswife.Evenaftermarriage,} the husband of his daughter was also residing there. Unfortunately, the husband of his daughter also expired in the year 2007^{duetoill-healthand} after the death of her husband, his elder daughter is also residing along with her children. In view of the above pathetic condition, the petitioner was mentally upset. Even after recouping from mental upset, the petitioner reported before the bank authorities during the year^{2011andrequestedthem} to issue posting orders as sub staff, the petitioner^{wasinformedthathisname}

¶51

¶52

was deleted from the panel of sub staff in the year 2006, on the ground that he had not reported to the branches for three times though posting orders were issued since 2006. It is the case of the petitioner^{thatheshiftedhisresidence} from Tirupathi to his native place Narasingapuram village during 2016 itself. But, the said fact was not informed to the respondent^{bankduetoill-healthof} his wife and the subsequent events. He has not received any show cause notice or removal orders at any point of time. The petitioner approached the personal officer and appraised the pathetic condition,^{whichhesuffered} all these years. But the petitioner was advised to make^{representation} to the Zonal officer ventilating all the facts. Accordingly, he made^{arepresentationto} the authorities concerned on 25.10.2012 along with necessary certificates and requested him to provide employment as sub-staff. Further, the 2 nd respondent issued letter stating that the petitioner^{failedtorespondtothe} show cause notice sent to the address available on record. Accordingly, his name was deleted from the panel of temporary sub staff for Tirupathi zone and his request for appointment cannot be considered^favourably. In the meanwhile, he submitted a representation to the State^{CommissionerforSC-} STs on 03.12.2012, pursuant to which, the Officer on Special Duty addressed a letter to the General Manager (HR), Andhra Bank requesting^toinformthe action taken report with regard to reconsideration^{ofthecaseofthepetitioner} for incorporating his name in the panel of temporary^sub staff. The bank addressed a letter dated 17.01.2013 informed the State^{Commissionthatthe} name of the petitioner was deleted from the panel of temporary sub staff vide

¶53

¶54

orders No.666/20/NV/TN/TSS-TPT/1629 dated 16.12.2008^{sincehisnameis} not in the panel, the petitioner is not eligible for^{absorption.Aggrievedbythe} same, the writ petition is filed.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^{StandingCounsel} for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶56

As seen from the record, it appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.11.2008 vide proceedings Lr.No.666/20/NV/TSS/SC/1310, calling for his objections^{astowhyhisname} shall not be deleted from the panel of temporary sub-staff,^{asperclause8(g)} & (h) of settlement dated 09.01.1995 within 15 days^{fromthedateofreceiptof} the letter, failing which, an appropriate action will^betaken against the petitioner, for not attending the bank inspite of the^{lettersissuedasreferredin} the show cause notice. In fact, the petitioner failed^{torespondtotheletters} issued by the respondent bank. The reasons assigned^{bythepetitionerfornot} reporting to the duties pursuance to the letters issued^{bythebankcannotbe} believed in the absence not filing the said explanation^{beforethisCourt.} If really the petitioner responded to the letters definitely^{hecouldhavefiledthe} explanations as stated by him as material papers. As stated by the respondent-bank, the petitioner did not report to the^duties, inspite of the letters issued by the bank. As the petitioner failed^{toreportthedutieshis} name was deleted from the panel of temporary sub-staff as per^theclause 8(g)&(h) of settlement dated 09.01.1995.

¶57

¶58

The petitioner being the employee of the bank, it is his responsibility to obtain prior sanction of the superior authorities before going on ieave, but i n the present case, admittedly the petitioner remained absent since 2008 due to various domestic reasons and he reported before the bank authorities only ini the year 2011 and requested to issue posting orders. But by the time, the petitioner reported to the bank authorities, his name was already removed from the panel and temporary sub-staff were appointed vide orders dated 16.12.2008.

¶59

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of learned counsel, since the petitioner failed to report duty within time prescribed, his name was deleted from the panel of sub-staff. The request of the petitioner for i inclusion of his name in the panel of sub-staff cannot be granted at this length of time. Hence, the writ petition ISi; misconceived and does not have any merits and thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶60

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to

¶61

costs.

¶62

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stands Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

closed.

SECTION OFFICER _

To,

One CC to Sri. V R Reddy Kovvuri Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

One CC to SRI. K Lakshmi Narasimha (SC for AB) Advocate [OPUC]

¶68

Three CD Copies

¶69

GSC

¶70

/'’

¶71

HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2024

*■

ORDER

WP.No.28064 of 2015

4* C ^ MAY ?0?5
^ Current Seetlon

DISMISSING OF THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

/
y
/

Nakka Subramanyam, Chittoor District v. Dy. Gm, Andhra Bank, Chittoor District and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakka Subramanyam, Chittoor District v. Dy. Gm, Andhra Bank, Chittoor District and 2 Others

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

M/s. Sri Ranga Agro Services, Vs Sri Gopal Krishna Dwivedi,I.a.S.

Kandoli Sreenivasulu Vs Smt. Gone Shanthamma

M.Amarnadha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gorakala Lakshmi, W/o. Late Dasari Suryanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its

Rasugorla Hari Prasad, Vs The Regional Manager

L.Lakshmaiah (E.No.512550), Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation