Allowed

B.Ramulu v. Charimanandmd Ap Transco HYDAND3 Others

Telangana HC3 Nov 2004WP/1485/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed a writ petition filed by a Fitter Grade-II employee. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same pay scale and consequential benefits as his juniors who perform the same nature of work, despite a lack of representation for the specific appointment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with specified colleagues with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

B.Ramulu Vs Charimanandmd Ap Transco HYDAND3 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 1485 of 2002

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Ramulu S/o Adivaiah, aged about 55 years,

¶9

Fitter-Gr.II, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Sirvella (PO) & Mandal,

¶10

Allagadda Taluk, Kurnool-518 563

¶11

..... PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1. The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.Transco,

¶14

Vidyutsoudha,Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶15

2. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Op.) A.P.Transco, Narsaraopet,

¶16

Guntur District,

¶17

3. The Managing Director, APCPDCL Pvt.Ltd.Mint Compound,

¶18

Hyderabad,

¶19

4. The Superintending Engineer (Op.), A.P.Transco, APCPDCL Pvt.Ltd., Kurnool District.

¶20

5. The Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Sirvella Section, Nandyal,

¶21

Kurnool District.

¶22

(R-5 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 11.09.2003

¶23

in W.P.M.P.No.20149 of 2003.)

¶24

.....RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, direction or a writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with M/s KSRKV Prasad, P.Rama Mohan Rao and S.K. Meera Saheb forthwith, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: CHALLA BHARATHI REDDY For the Respondents:MR. S. RAVINDRANATH , S.C. for APTRANSCO

¶27

The Court made the following :

¶28

O R D E R :

¶29

The petitioner seeks to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay scale of petitioner on par with KSRKV Prasad, P.Rama Mohana Rao and S.K.Meera Saheb with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

¶30

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.8976 of 1996 dated 29-112000. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition, following the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.16080 of 1987, dated 7.9.1988, on the ground that the petitioners therein are entitled for the same benefit as was given to other employees who were similarly situated and therefore, the present writ petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit on par with KSRKV Prasad, P.Rama Mohana Rao and S.K. Meera Saheb.

¶31

4. A counter has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner who was appointed as Fitter Grade-II in the time scale of

¶32

Rs.80-4-100-5-125 by the Executive Engineer, Sileru vide Proceedings No.EE/MI/LS/C2/2479/75, dated 10.07.1975 joined duty on 22.7.1975 and the petitioner prays to fix his pay by appointment in the time scale of Rs.100-6-112-7168 as his juniors were appointed in the time scale of Rs.100-6-112-7-168 as they are doing the same nature of work. It is stated that the petitioner was transferred from lower Sileru to the Operation Division, Nandyal vide Memo No.SE/Dec./C3/F.14(a)/3609/78, dated 29.6.1978/1.7.1978 and joined duty at Operation Division, Nandyal on 7.8.1978. It is contended by the respondents that in the absence of any representation from the petitioner, who worked as Fitter Grade-II, for appointment in the time scale of Rs.100-6-112-7-168, giving the time scale on par with his juniors who do not belong to the same Division, cannot be considered.

¶33

5. I am of the opinion that there is no justification on the part of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner in the time scale on par with juniors viz. KSRKV Prasad, P.Rama Mohana Rao and S.K. Meera Saheb.

¶34

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit as that of his juniors. Consequently, the respondents are directed to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with Sri KSRKV Prasad, P.Rama Mohana Rao and S.K.Mdeera Saheb.

¶35

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The arrears, if any, in this regard payable to the petitioner, shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶36

V. ESWARAIAH, J

¶37

Dated:03-11-2004.

¶38

ccm

¶39

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶40

Witness the Hon’ble Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Wednesday, the 3^rd day of November, Two thousand and four.

¶41

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶42

ccm

¶43

To:

¶44

1. The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.Transco,

¶45

Vidyutsoudha,Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶46

2. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Op.) A.P.Transco, Narsaraopet,

¶47

Guntur District,

¶48

3. The Managing Director, APCPDCL Pvt.Ltd.Mint Compound,

¶49

Hyderabad,

¶50

4. The Superintending Engineer (Op.), A.P.Transco, APCPDCL Pvt.Ltd., Kurnool District.

¶51

5. The Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Sirvella Section, Nandyal,

¶52

Kurnool District.

¶53

6. 2 CD copies.

B.Ramulu v. Charimanandmd Ap Transco HYDAND3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramulu v. Charimanandmd Ap Transco HYDAND3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurakaula Krishna Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Parandham Kumar S/o. P.Ramaswamy Vs the Deputy General Manager (Personel - Corporate)

Rayala Nageswara Rao, Vs The District Co.operative Officer

G. Venka Goud Vs Apsrtc, rept by Managing Director

B.v.B.Subba Rao Guntur Vs Dist Educationla Officer Guntur

Dr.P.Karunakara Rao, M.Sc., Ph.D., Vs Kakatiya University, rep.by its Registrar