V Rajya Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

V RAJYA LAKSHMI, D/O V.MANGI REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, D SECTION, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, PRASADAMPADU, CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶15

THE DIRECTOR EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, IHC CORPORATE,3RD FLOOR,R.T.C.DEPOT ROAD, MANGALAGIRI,GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.M SRIKANTH

¶19

2

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

3

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.7866 of 2025

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present writ petition is filed declaring the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of 12 years special promotion scale 1-A, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

The contention of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Typist and she was further promoted as Senior Assistant on 19.08.2010 and her services have been regularized in the cadre of Senior Assistant with effect from 10.04.2011 on the ground that she had not completed required period of service of three years in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by proceedings dated 29.09.2015 and thereafter, she was promoted as Office Superintendent on 31.12.2024. In the said circumstances, as the petitioner is eligible and entitled for grant of special promotion scale on completion of 12 years of service in the post of Senior Assistant, she has made a request

¶29

4

¶30

and the same has been considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 18.12.2024. In the said order, for rejection, the respondent authorities have shown a reason that the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on 22.04.2022 i.e., even before completion of 12 years of service when she has not inclined to join the promotional post/declined. Hence, she is not eligible for appointment to special promotion post - 1A scale as per para No.7 of G.O.Ms.No.96, Finance (Pay Commission – II) Department, dated 20.05.2011.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner has made an application on 07.03.2022 for maternity leave for 180 days i.e., from 09.03.2022 to 04.09.2022. The respondent authorities have considered and the said leave has been sanctioned vide proceedings dated 16.03.2022. When she is on leave/maternity leave, the respondent authorities have issued proceedings on 22.04.2022, considering the seniority, effected promotion as Office Superintendent on adhoc basis to the post of Stores Officer in APSBCL. He has further submitted that posting of the petitioner as Stores Officer in APSBCL is on deputation. Once the petitioner is on maternity leave, she has not joined the said post. Declining the post on deputation would not

¶32

5

¶33

consider as declining the promotion from the parent department. In fact, she is on maternity leave at that point of time. As the leave has been sanctioned by the authorities, they should not have sent the petitioner on deputation to the other department without consent. When that being the position, the respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the petitioner for special promotion post 1A scale.

¶34

Reply to the said contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents based on the averments made in the counter stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on 22.04.2022, but she did not join the promotional post and again she was promoted as Office Superintendent on 31.12.2024. As the Automatic Advancement Scheme was introduced in order to remove stagnation in services, the petitioner was considered and promoted to the higher post within 12 years. As she could not join the promotional post, she is not entitled for SPP-1A scale.

¶35

Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record, no doubt, the respondents have considered and promoted the petitioner on adhoc basis as Stores Officer in APSBCL. The said transfer/promotion is not within the department. The promotion

¶36

6

¶37

has been made to the parent department. The respondents are required to obtain consent. Apart from that, the authorities themselves have sanctioned the maternity leave vide proceedings dated 16.03.2022 from 09.03.2022 to 04.09.2022. So, in between the authorities ought not to have issued the proceedings when the petitioner is on maternity leave. In the said circumstances, non-joining of the petitioner at promotional post cannot be a ground for rejection of claim under para No.7 of G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 20.05.2011.

¶38

For the above reasons, the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 is set aside remanding the matter to the authorities for fresh consideration and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39