Disposed

A.Sambasiva Rao, Guntur Dist. v. Apsrtc.,Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Aug 2024WP/34197/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of filing a representation for earlier promotion due to lack of documentary evidence. The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation within 2 weeks; Respondents to consider and pass orders within 4 weeks.

A.Sambasiva Rao, Guntur Dist. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

^*4 *4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34197 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

A. Samba Siva Rao, S/o. Hanumanth Rao, Aged about 51 years, R/o Sitha Ram Nagar, Lane, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep by Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by Regional Manager, Guntur Region, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶14

The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by Executive Director, Vijaywada Zone, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶15

The A.P.S.R.T.C, rep. by Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Vijayawada Zone, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in promoting the Petitioner as Junior Assistant with effect from 06-03-2014 instead of 08-11-2010 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and just and consequently

¶18

¶19

direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for Promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 08-11-2010 instead of 06 03-2014 in pursuance of circular No. PD.27/2003 dated 16-04-2003. Circular No. PD. 116/75, dated 9-2-1975 and Proceedings dated 17-062013 and to pay all Consequential benefits to the Petitioner.

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015fWPMP. NO: 44001 OF 2015)

¶21

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 consider his promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 8-11-2010 instead of 06-03-2014, pending disposal of Writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner ;SRI. Y SUBBA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 to 5: SRI M SOLOMAN RAJU, SC

¶24

FOR APSRTC

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶26

Vi,

¶27

APHC010111882015

¶28

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

¶29

[3333]

¶30

FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 34197/2015

¶34

Between:

¶35

A.sambasiva Rao, Guntur Dist. ...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

Apsrtc Hyderabad 4 Otrs and Others

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶40

1.YSUBBA RAO

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

¶43

2.SOLOMON RAJU MANCHALAFOR (APSRTC)

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

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

¶47

“....to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in promoting the Petitioner as Junior Assistant with effect^from 06.03.2014 instead of 08.11.2010 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and just and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the case of the^{PetitionerforPromotionto} the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 08.11.2010^{insteadof06.03.2014} in pursuance of circular No.PD.27/2003 dated 16.04.2003 Circular No.PD.116/75 dated 9.2.1975 and Proceedings dated 17.06.2013 and to pay all Consequential benefits to the Petitioner....”

¶48

The petitioner herein was initially appointed as conductor on 01.07.1987 in the respondent corporation at Chilakaluripeta Bus Depot. While so, he was terminated from his services vide proceedings dated 08.08.1989; subsequently he has raised an industrial tribunal vide l.D.No.347 of 1989 before the Labour Court, Guntur, wherein an award was passed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh conductor. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner was posted at Sattanapally Depot.

¶49

While so, the respondent has prepared 1®* panel of^candidates for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 2008, wherein the petitioner herein was placed at SI.No.147; as such,^{hewasnotconsideredfor} promotion to the said post. The petitioner was removed^from service vide proceedings dated 16.06.2009 and was reinstated into^servicewith all the benefits except reduction in pay by incremental stages. Subsequently, the respondent has prepared a 2"'^ panel of candidates for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, wherein the petitioner herein was placed at SI.No.30. The validity of the said panel was from 07.11.2009 to 08.11.2010. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though his case falls within the purview of the circular No.PD-116/75-76, dated 09.02.1976 and though he was reinstated into service on 10.06.2010 which is within the validity period of the 2"^^ panel

¶50

i.e. 07.11.2009 to 08.11.2010, the petitioner’s case was considered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 06.03.2014 instead of 08.11.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 04.08.2014 to the respondents requestingto consider his case for promotion to the said post from 08.11.2010, but his efforts are of no avail. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying all the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the circular dated 09.02.1976 relying by the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and is meant for working employees whose cases are to be considered for promotion to the next higher post only, but not to those who were removed from service and not on rolls of the corporation. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.^Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

¶52

The facts in the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be seen from the material available that the petitioner was removed from his services on 16.09.2009 and was later reinstated into service with all benefits except reduction in pay by incremental stages on 05.05.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 06.03.2014, but his grievance is that his promotion should have been considered from the date of preparation of the 2'^'^ panel i.e. 08.11.2010, but not 06.03.2014. 7. It can be seen that though the petitioner stated that he has submitted a detailed representation dated 04.08.2014 to the respondents requesting to consider his case for promotion to the said post with effect from 08.11.2010, no piece of paper was filed by him to prove^{thesaidsubmission.} In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner herein to submit a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of

¶53

¶54

two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, reiterating his grievance. On receipt of the said representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks.

¶55

Accordingly, with the above directions, this writ petition IS disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶57

Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶58

¶59

To,

¶60

The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad Hyderabad.

¶61

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada Region, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶62

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Guntur Region, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶63

The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijaywada Zone, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶64

The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Vijayawada Zone, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶65

One CC to SRI. Y SUBBA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

One CC to SRI. M SOLOMAN RAJU, SC FOR APSRTC [OPUC]

¶67

Three CD Copies

¶68

PRK

¶69

HIGH COURT

¶70

fiiDATED:09/08/2024 i* ; H.4 - f 'J

¶71

ORDER WP.No.34197 of 2015

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WP, WITHOUT COSTS

A.Sambasiva Rao, Guntur Dist. v. Apsrtc.,Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sambasiva Rao, Guntur Dist. v. Apsrtc.,Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.G.Raja Rao, Vs Sri Venkateshwara Bhakthi Channel

Sri M.R.C. Reddy, E 404619 REtd., Driver Vs The Apsrtc

M. Nageswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Sai Prasad, Vs The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments

V.Balakrishna, S/o late Surya Kameswara Rao, Vs The General Manager (Nw-Iii) and Appointing Authority

Maddala Rupa Kishore, Vs Ap Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited