Dismissed

N.Pentaiah, S/o. Rajanna v. The District Collector, Karimnagar.

Telangana HC30 Oct 2009WP/307/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a regularization posting of the petitioner as a Watchman instead of an Attender. It held the posting was legal, noting authorities have discretion based on exigencies. Petitioner was ordered to be paid salary for services rendered during the interim period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be paid salary for service rendered between 09.10.2003 and 19.01.2004.

N.Pentaiah, S/o. Rajanna Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 307 OF 2004

¶3

DATED 30^TH OCTOBER, 2009-10-30

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

N.Pentaiah …Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The District Collector, Karimnagar and ors.

¶8

…Respondents.

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 307 OF 2004

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The services of the petitioner and Sailu, the fourth respondent along with two others, were regularized in Class IV cadre by the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Karimangar in Ref.No. A4/2405/2003, dated 26.09.2003. This regularization was effected pursuant to the policy of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.112, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 23.07.1997. Upon regularization by way of the said order, the petitioner was allotted to the office of the Principal, APSWRS, Garrepally, the third respondent school, against the post of Watchman while Sailu, the fourth respondent, was allotted as an Attender in the office of the Executive Engineer, SW., Karimnagar.

¶13

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said posting, challenged the proceedings dated 26.09.2003 to that limited extent by way of this writ petition. He sought a declaration that the consequential

¶14

proceedings issued by the Executive Engineer (SW), District Scheduled Caste Service Cooperative Society Limited, Karimnagar on 09.10.2003, allotting him as a Watchman in the third respondent school was illegal and arbitrary and sought a consequential direction to appoint him as an Attender with effect from 1993.

¶15

In his counter, the Executive Engineer (SW), the second respondent, stated that there was only one post of attender in the second respondent’s office and as the fourth respondent was having the minimum qualification of 10^th class, necessary for the post of attender, and he also belonged to the category of SC, his case was given priority. He stated that previously, the SC roster post was not filled due to non-availability of an eligible SC candidate and therefore the case of the fourth respondent was considered and he was appointed to the said post.

¶16

In the light of the above statement, the contention of the petitioner that he had earlier worked as an attender while the fourth respondent worked as a watchman and therefore, the action of the authorities in reversing their posting is bad, cannot be accepted. It is not for the petitioner to choose which post in the Class IV cadre he would like. No such indefeasible right is vested in him merely because he had worked as an attender earlier. It is for the authorities to consider the exigencies of the situation. In view of the reasons forthcoming from the second respondent which warranted the posting of the fourth respondent as an attender, this Court finds no lacuna or defect in the impugned order dated 26.09.2003 and in the consequential orders of the second respondent dated 09.10.2003.

¶17

It appears that the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition in WPMP.No.984 of 2005 in this writ petition complaining that he was not paid arrears of salary for the period 09.10.2003 to 19.01.2004.

¶18

While dismissing the said miscellaneous petition on 19.04.2008, a learned Judge of this Court observed that the relief sought in the said petition could not be granted till the disposal of the Writ Petition. Therefore, this issue also needs to be considered at this stage.

¶19

It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner failed to join in the post of watchman in the third respondent school pursuant to the impugned proceedings. In the event the petitioner did join in the post in the third respondent school and rendered service from the date of his initial posting, there is no reason as to why he should be deprived of the salary due to him for such services. The respondent authorities shall accordingly pay the petitioner salary for the service actually rendered by him during the above period.

¶20

The Writ Petition is dismissed, subject to the above observation. No costs.

¶21

JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶22

DATED 30^TH OCTOBER, 2009. Msnr.

N.Pentaiah, S/o. Rajanna v. The District Collector, Karimnagar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Pentaiah, S/o. Rajanna v. The District Collector, Karimnagar.

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

Col.D.D. Pawar Vs Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 2 Ors.

Col. Pramod Sinha Vs Union of India rep by The Secretary, (Dp Ands)

G.Satyanarayana No.925022293, Vs The Directorate General, Central Industrial Security

B.F.Bala Swamy, s/o Bj Balaiah, Vs The Honble Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

V.C. Rajan, S/o K. Raman Nair Vs Union of India, rep by the Ministry of Defence

Sk. Chandhani, S/o. Ibrahim, Working as Contract Laboourer, Vs A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.