D.Srinivas Rao v. Union of India, Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Aug 2024WP/38005/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati considered a writ petition seeking service benefits, promotion, and increments for a petitioner suspended during criminal proceedings. The Court noted the petitioner had already been promoted and benefits fixed after his acquittal and closure of the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the writ petition was closed.

D.Srinivas Rao Vs Union of India, Rep… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 38005 OF 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

D.SRINIVAS RAO, S/o.Late Atchi Babu Aged 48 years, Occ: Employee, R/ 0.49-54-2 / 12, Sneha Latha Apartments, 4th Floor, Near Raghavendra Hospital, Balaiah Sastry Layout, Visakhapatnam.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Union of India, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

¶11

Rasthriya Ispat Nigam Limited, (Visakhapatnam, Steel Plant) Rep. by its Director (Personal), Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam

¶12

The General Manager (0), Steel Melt Shop-1, Visakhapatnam^Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 any other Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing service benefits, such as promotion, increments and leaves

¶15

to the petitioner after his acquittal in criminal cases as ultra vires, arbitrary, violation of Standing Orders of the 2nd respondent company and also Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and in consequence thereof direct the respondents to provide all service benefits such as promotion, increments and leaves to the petitioner if he was not placed under suspension as per the Provisions of Standing Orders of the 2nd respondent company

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 48888 OF 20151

¶17

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 provide all service benefits such as promotion, increments and leaves to the petitioner if he was not placed under suspension as per the Provisions of Standing Orders of the 2nd respondent company

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S V R SUBRAHMANYAM

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR CENTRL GOVT)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: SRI A KRISHNAM RAJU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶23

¶24

APHC010800372015

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

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

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 38005/2015

Between:

D.srinivas Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

Union Of India Rep By Its PrI Secretary And 2 Others^{and...RESPONDENT(S)} Others

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.S VRSUBRAHMANYAM

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

1.M INDRANI

¶40

2.GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR(SC FOR CENTRL GOVT)

¶41

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶42

4.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI

¶43

A KRISHNAM RAJU

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief;

¶48

“ to issue any other Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing service benefits, such as promotion, increments and leaves to the petitioner after his acquittal in criminal cases as ultra vires, arbitrary,

¶49

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently working as Senior Chargeman (O), S.M.S. Department, Visakhapatnam^{SteelPlantwith} Employee No.116382 and while he was discharging duties as Technician, he was suspended vide Suspension Order in W.K./SMS/O/406 dated^{20-7-2006ofthe} Deputy General Manager, S.M.S. Department in terms of Clause No.31.1 of Certified Standing Orders of Rasthriya Ispat Nigam Limited on the pretext that the criminal proceedings under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC at Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam are pending against the petitioner. After due investigation in the said criminal case, charge sheet^{wasfiledvideS.C.No.10of} 2008 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge Mahila Court Visakhapatnam, and the said case was ended in acquittal on 15.03.2012. After acquittal in the said criminal case, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 25-5-2012 to the concerned authorities requesting to release his monetary benefits during suspension period.

¶50

The grievance of the petitioner is that the General^{Manager(Steel)(In} charge) issued promotion orders vide WK/SMS/2013/1 dated 30-6-2013 wherein the petitioner was shown at Serial No.27 as^{Chargeman(W)-0Grade} -S6. If at all the suspension period is reckoned by^{therespondents} in pursuance of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, the^petitioner would have acquired the said promotion even prior to^theyear2013. As the respondents have failed to consider the case of the^{petitionerforproviding} other benefits during the period of suspension, the petitioner has again submitted a representation to the 3'^ respondent on^{09.07.2015requestingto} rectify the position of the petitioner in the promotion^{orderdated30.06.2013by} duly implementing the powers under 31.4 to treat the^{suspensionperiodas} deemed to be on duty and provide all departmental benefits^{tothepetitioner.} As no action has been initiated by the respondents^{thereafter,thepresentWrit} Petition is filed.

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^{counselappearing} for the respondents.

¶52

Today when the matter came for hearing, learned^{StandingCounsel} appearing for the respondent No.3 has produced a copy of the^{instructions,} wherein it is stated that as the petitioner herein^wasinvolved in the criminal case, he was suspended on 20.07.2006 and subsequently,^{saidsuspension} has been revoked on 19.02.2010 and the petitioner assumed duty on

¶53

¶54

20.02.2010, During the suspension period the performance appraisal ratings were not generated and hence, promotion from S6 to S7 grade could not be given to the petitioner. However, after fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was given promotion for S-7 grade on 21.09.2015 and his seniority in the post was reckoned with effect from 01.12.2009,^{thedateonwhichthe} petitioner would have got promoted had he has not been suspended. Accordingly, the petitioner had assumed the charge in the post w.e.f. 21.9.2015. Further, the respondent Company had also issued proceedings dated 21.09.2015 fixing his basic pay.

¶55

Recording the same, the Writ Petition is closed. There^{shallbenoorder} as to costs.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶57

Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI FICER

To,

One CC to SRI S V R SUBRAHMANYAM Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR CENTRE GOVT) Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

One CC to SRI A KRISHNAM RAJU Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to SRI KIRAN KUMAR VADI_AMUDI [OPUC]

¶65

Three CD Copies

Smb

HIGH COURT

DATED: 23/08/2024

ORDER

WP.No.38005 of 2015

5 01 APR 2C25 COI
&
l^esPATCV^

¶72

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

D.Srinivas Rao v. Union of India, Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Srinivas Rao v. Union of India, Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 2 Others

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

The Chief Engineer (Projects) Srisailam Project, Vs Y. Jammulaiah

Marada Shankar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

M.R.K.Rao, Vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C

S.Nagamani, Kurnool Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Women Dev. and Child Welfare and 3 Ors.

k.srinivasa rao Vs the M.D.,Ap State Housing Corpn.Ltd and 4 Others

D.Saibaba, E.G. Dist and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Revenue (Endowments) Dept., Hyd and 2 Ot