Disposed

P. Samba Murthy, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Telangana HC6 Aug 2004WP/12178/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, under Article 226, directed electricity department respondents to consider the petitioner's case for automatic advancement benefits as per a 1997 memo and pass appropriate orders within three months, disposing of the writ petition at the admission stage without a final merits decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the petitioner's case under Memo No. DS(Reg)/DM(Reg)/PO.11/A1-275/97-1 and pass orders within three months.

P. Samba Murthy, Vs The Superintendent… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12178 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Samba Murthy, @ Sambaiah, S/o. Suraiah, A.P. Transco, Mallikarjuna Colony, D.No. 16-214, Rajam, Srikakulam District.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. The Superintendent Engineer, Operation/Elec, APEPDCL., Vizianagaram.

¶12

2. The Chief Engineer (Electricity) Visakhapatnam Zone,

¶13

Visakhapatnam.

¶14

3. The Division Electrical Engineer, Operation, Vizianagaram.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus: 1) to declare the action of the respondents as illegal arbitrary & unconstitutional in withholding the increments of the petitioner from 1984 till date & consequently direct to release the same; 2) to declare the petitioner eligible for the benefit of automatic advancement scheme, from 1984 till date; 3) Call for the records and pass appropriate orders as this Court deems fit and proper.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.R.Annapurna Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Mr.M. Subba Rao, Standing Counsel for APEPDCL

¶18

The Court at the admission stage made the following:

¶19

Oral Order:

¶20

The petitioner is working as a Line Inspector under the respondent—company. He was imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect through the order dated 13-12-1983. The petitioner contends that subsequently he was not granted any pay revision till date from 1984 to 2004. He has been drawing the same pay since 1984. He was not given any benefit of automatic advancement scheme. The petitioner submits that the erstwhile A.P.State Electricity Board has issued a Memo No.DS(Reg)/DM(Reg)/PO.11/A1-275/97-1 dated 3-10-1997 to the effect that the automatic advancement scheme would be extended to persons who are punished with stoppage of increments without cumulative effect, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of the said Memo. The petitioner further submits that he made several representations to pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the Memo dated 3-10-1987 of the APSEB, but so far the concerned authorities have not passed any orders on those representations. He therefore approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders for application of automatic advancement scheme to the petitioner in pursuance of the Memo dated 3-10-1987.

¶21

In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by virtue of the Memo No. DS(Reg)/DM(Reg)/PO.11/A1-275/97-1 dated 3-10-1997 of the APSEB and pass appropriate orders regarding the automatic advancement scheme by clarifying the same in terms of the existing rules within three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶22

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶23

(Dr.G. Yethirajulu, J)

¶24

06^th August 2004

¶25

svs

¶26

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Superintendent Engineer, Operation/Elec, APEPDCL.,

¶31

Vizianagaram.

¶32

2. The Chief Engineer (Electricity) Visakhapatnam Zone, Visakhapatnam.

¶33

3. The Division Electrical Engineer, Operation, Vizianagaram.

¶34

4. 2CCs to

¶35

5. 2CD copies

P. Samba Murthy, v. The Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Samba Murthy, v. The Superintendent Engineer

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

Lamba Theatre.Sec.Bad Vs Adl.Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad

Mecon (I) Ltd. Vs Ind.Tribunal-Cum-L.C.Vsp.Andanother

Borewell Hydrolics(P) Ltd.M Vs Chairman Industrial Tribunal

M.V. Krishna Reddy, Vs The Chief Engineer (Randb)

P. Ashok Kumar, Vs The Chief General Manager

Noor Mohammed, E-81181, Drivefr Vs The a.Ps.R.T.C. Rep by itss Managing Director