Allowed

State of andhra Pradesh represented by its v. Sri T.Ch.Appa Rao

Telangana HC21 Sept 2005WP/8305/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposes of two Writ Petitions filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging an Administrative Tribunal order. The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision directing promotion panel inclusion due to the prospective nature of the relevant General Order.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside and matter remanded for proper appreciation; Writ Petitions allowed.

State of andhra Pradesh represented by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION Nos.5834 AND 8305 OF 2005

¶5

Dt:21.09.2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary, Technical Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

Sri T.Krishna Reddy Office Superintendent Government Institute of Printing Technology Secunderabad.

¶10

Sri T.Ch.Appa Rao Hostel Manager Government Polytechnic for Women Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District

¶11

… RESPONDENTS

¶12

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶13

AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION Nos. 5834 AND 8305 OF 2005

¶16

COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶17

Since the issue involved in these two Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common Order.

¶18

These Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner-Department aggrieved by the common Order dated 10.12.2004 in O.A.Nos.6658 and 6661 of 2004 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶19

The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondents herein are the applicants in the said O.As.

¶20

The above mentioned O.As were filed by the respondents-applicants to direct the petitioner-Department to consider their cases for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer/Hostel Superintendent by placing their cases before the Departmental Promotion Committee for the panel year 2004-2005.

¶21

It is the case of the respondents-applicants that they were promoted temporarily as Hostel Superintendents during the panel year 2000-2001 but, they could not join within the time stipulated due to their domestic problems. Later, they made number of representations to the petitioner-Department for considering their cases as they should not be deprived of their promotions permanently. Since their representations were not considered, they filed the above said O.As before the Tribunal.

¶22

The Tribunal allowed the O.As directing the petitioner-Department to place the cases of the respondents-applicants before the Departmental Promotion Committee for inclusion of their names in the panel year 2004-2005 and to consider their cases for promotion as per their seniority, eligibility and qualifications.

¶23

It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners-Department that the O.As were allowed by the Tribunal at the admission stage itself even before filing of the counter and the Department has taken a decision to file review petitions also in these cases but, as it could not file the same within thirty days, it filed these Writ Petitions.

¶24

Learned Government Pleader further contended that the Tribunal erroneously directed the petitioner-Department to include the names of the respondentsapplicants in the panel year 2004-2005 as per G.O.Ms.No.145 G.A.(Ser.D) Department dated 15.06.2004 without noticing that the said G.O. is only with prospective effect and unless and until the G.O. is given with retrospective effect, respondents-applicants cases cannot be included again in the panel for promotion.

¶25

In view of the fact that the O.As were allowed by the Tribunal even before

¶26

filing of the counter and without considering the applicability of the G.O. to the cases of the respondents-applicants, we set aside the Order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for proper appreciation. Petitioner-Department shall file the counter within a period of four weeks from today and after filing such counter, the Tribunal shall dispose of the O.As within a period two months thereafter.

¶27

With the above direction, the Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶28

(T.MEENA KUMARI, J)

¶29

(P.LAKSHMANA REDDY, J)

¶30

Dt: 21.09.2005

¶31

bsv/lvl

¶32

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶33

AND

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶35

WRIT APPEAL No.1459 OF 2005

¶36

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy)

State of andhra Pradesh represented by its v. Sri T.Ch.Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of andhra Pradesh represented by its v. Sri T.Ch.Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Rao Vs Secretary

Dr.M.Vidya Sagar Vs Govt. of A.P.

The Commissioner Vs D.Darshan

G. Jagadish, Vs The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal

Mohd. Mukthar, Vs The Managing Director

M.Subrhamanyam Vs Ttd Rep by its Executive Officer