Allowed

K. Raju, E-406018, v. The Apsrtc

Telangana HC15 Jun 2005WP/12548/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the respondents' refusal to grant selection grade scale stagnation increments after completing 12 years of service. Relying on a prior Division Bench judgment, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to grant the selection grade within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondent directed to pass orders granting selection grade to the petitioner within two months.

K. Raju, E-406018, Vs The Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12548 of 2005

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Raju, E-406018, S/o Peddanna, Banaganapalle Depot, R/o Banaganapalle, Kurnool District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Kurnool Region, Kurnool.

¶12

2 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not granting the selection grade scale stagnation increments to the petitioner on completion of 12 years service is illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to well established principles of law and as such set aside the same by directing the respondents herein to add the stagnation increment to the petitioner on completion of 12 years of service irrespective of his transfer from the date of initial appointment w.e.f. 01-2-1992 and to pay the arrears by refixing the pay of the petitioner forthwith.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY

¶17

The Court at the stage of admission made the following:

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in granting selection grade scale, even though the petitioner had completed 12 years of service in the respondent-Corporation.

¶20

2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the year 1992 and worked in various depots as per the orders of the Corporation, and he had completed 12 years of service by the year 2004. It is further stated that as the respondent-Corporation provided a scheme to grant incentives to the employees, who have completed 12 years of service without getting any promotion, by an additional increment and putting the employees on a special scale called Selection Grade. As the respondents have not granted the selection Grade Scale, the petitioner made a representation on 12-05-2004 and again in February, 2005, but no orders have been passed. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶21

3. At the time of hearing, it is represented by both sides that the matter is covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1301 of 2000 dated 29-12-2002. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders granting selection grade to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶23

S.ANANDA REDDY, J

15^th June, 2005

SKM

1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC,

¶28

Kurnool Region, Kurnool.

¶29

2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC,

¶30

Banaganapalle, Kurnool District.

¶31

3. 2 CD copies

¶32

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{AVLR}

K. Raju, E-406018, v. The Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Raju, E-406018, v. The Apsrtc

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

A.Satya Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Commissioner

M.Suresh kumar, Vs Addl.Registering Authority and Secretary

Md. Nayeemuddin, E-85915, Conductor, Vs The Apsrtc rep by Regional Manager

D. Anjaiah, Vs Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Smt. Vanthala Atchayamma D/o Late Pappula Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh, rep by Secretary, Social

Chitikela Appala Naidu, Vs The Additional Agent to the Government