Allowed

S.Achuta Ramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Dec 2010WP/18200/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble C.V. Ramulu J. allowed two writ petitions seeking mandamus for upgradation. The court held the petitioner shall be treated as holding the upgraded post of P.A. to Executive Officer from 12.9.2003 with benefits, subject to juniority restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be treated as holding the post of Public Relation Officer upgraded to P.A. to Executive Officer from 12.9.2003 with all benefits.

S.Achuta Ramaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

W.P.Nos.18200 & 25963 of 2005

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

W.P.No.18200 of 2005

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not upgrading the post of Public Relation Officer in the cadre of Superintendent to the cadre of P.A. to Executive Officer of second respondent establishment pursuant to proceedings bearing Rc.No.A1/20919/03 dated 12.9.2003 of the first respondent as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to implement orders of first respondent dated 12.9.2003 by extending all benefits attached to the said post to the petitioner from the date of order of the first respondent.

¶6

It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant and subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant. According to the petitioner,

¶7

first respondent accorded permission to the second respondent vide proceedings dated 23.9.2002 to fill up the post of Public Relation Officer in the cadre of Superintendent, as available in the sanctioned cadre strength. In pursuance of the same, the second respondent, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 35 of Act 30/87, vide proceedings No.A1/4140/2002 dated 24.9.2002 promoted the petitioner as Public Relation Officer in the cadre of Superintendent in the existing vacancy. Questioning the same, one D.Saibabu filed W.P.No.23889 of 2002. Pending adjudication of the said writ petition, on a memo dated 5.5.2003 from the first respondent, second respondent submitted a detailed report vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/2381/2003 dated 1.9.2003 to the first respondent regarding the need of upgrading the existing post of Public Relation Officer in the cadre of Superintendent to the cadre of P.A. to Executive Officer. On receipt of the said report, the first respondent upgraded the post of Public Relation Officer in the category of P.A. to

¶8

Executive Officer in the timescale of Rs.6350-13000 vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/20919/03 dated 12.9.2003. Thereafter, this Court allowed the Writ Petition No.23889 of 2002 filed by D.Saibabu directing the respondents to extend all monetary benefits to said Saibabu by duly taking his promotion with effect from the date on which petitioner herein was promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer without setting aside the order dated 24.9.2002 promoting the petitioner to the post of Public Relation Officer. Thus, according to the petitioner, his promotion to the post of Public Relation Officer in the cadre of Superintendent was upheld and became final since no appeal was filed against the said orders of this Court.

¶9

According to the petitioner, the Three Men Committee also accepted in principle for upgradation of post held by the petitioner and the Trust Board of the second respondent Temple has also passed a resolution dated 10.6.2004 recommending upgradation of post of Public Relation Officer held by petitioner in the cadre of Superintendent to the cadre of P.A. to Executive Officer. Even the Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 35(4) of Act 30/87 issued proceedings upgrading the post of Public Relation Officer to that of P.A. to Executive Officer. Though the petitioner made number of representations to the respondents for implementation of the orders of the first respondent, there was no response, hence he filed the present W.P.No.18200 of 2005.

¶10

It appears, since no counter was filed in spite of granting adjournments, this Court directed the Executive Officer of the second respondent-Temple to be present before the court, who recommended upgradation of P.R.O. post to that of P.A. to Executive Officer, the Executive Officer appeared before the Court and filed counter thereafter. The second respondent (Executive Officer) seems to have hurt since he was called to the Court during pendency of the writ petition. Therefore he recommended for withdrawal of upgradation granted by first respondent by letter dated 24.10.2005 and the first respondent accepted the same by letter dated 23.11.2005 and the upgradation of post of Public Relation

¶11

Officer was withdrawn. Hence petitioner filed second Writ Petition No.25963 of 2005.

¶12

No counter is filed by first respondent. The second respondent filed counter and during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondents states that there are four more persons above the petitioner in the cadre of Superintendent and therefore, the question of posting the petitioner as Public Relation Officer was not desirable and even if he is posted, it should be treated in the cadre of Superintendent and not equivalent to that of P.A. to Executive Officer. However, now it is stated that all the Senior Assistants have been promoted as Superintendents and four of Superintendents have been promoted to that of P.A. to Executive Officer and there are two more persons above the petitioner, out of them one is not qualified and the other one has retired, therefore petitioner is now eligible for being promoted to the post of P.A. to Executive Officer.

¶13

According to the learned counsel for respondents, merits of the matter need not be gone into, since any way, petitioner will be promoted immediately. I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondents. Admittedly, petitioner is holding the post of Public Relation Officer even as of today. Therefore, the question remained is whether the petitioner is entitled to draw the salary in the scale of P.A. to Executive Officer while holding the post of Public Relation Officer or not. Once there is no other person eligible and qualified for being promoted to the post of Public Relation Officer or to be posted as Public Relation Officer which is made equivalent to the post of P.A. to Executive Officer, the question of downgrading the position of the petitioner does not arise. As noticed above, the withdrawal of up gradation of Public Relation Officer is unwarranted, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner shall be treated as if he is holding the post of Public Relation Officer, which was upgraded to that of P.A. to Executive Officer from the date of the order of the first respondent dated 12.9.2003 with all other benefits. However, it

¶14

is made clear that the petitioner cannot seek seniority over and above the Superintendents who are now promoted as P.A. to Executive Officer and his seniority in the cadre of P.A. to Executive Officer shall be counted from the date of his regular promotion as P.A. to Executive Officer, for which he is due.

¶15

Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.

¶16

______________ C.V.RAMULU, J

¶17

Date: 14.12.2010 DA

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶19

W.P.Nos.18200 & 25963 of 2005

¶20

14.12.2010

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶23

W.P.Nos.18200 & 25963 of 2005

¶24

Date: 14^th December, 2010

¶25

Between: S.Achuta Ramaiah And State of A.P., rep. by its Commissioner, Endowment Department, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad and others.

¶26

.. Petitioner in both W.Ps.

¶27

.. Respondents in both W.Ps.

S.Achuta Ramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Achuta Ramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Vedicherla Sreenadha Reddy Vs Sri Sai Baba Avenue Development Society

Gunda Eswara Rao, Vs Prl.Secretary to the Government Panchayatraj and Rural

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University Vs Vice Chancellor

S. Achuta Ramaiah, Vs State of a.P., Endowment Department

Arrack Bottling Unit Khamma and 1 Vs P.O.Labour Court and 1

Arrack Botting Unit Wyra Khammamandanr Vs Hon/Ble Labour Court Warangalandanr