Disposed

R.Kishore Kumar v. The Project Director

Telangana HC18 Nov 2011WP/22942/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-payment of annual grade increments to contractual employees. The Court, without expressing an opinion on merits, directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' case and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' case and pass appropriate orders within two months.

R.Kishore Kumar Vs The Project Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22942 of 2010

¶3

Dated 18-11-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

I.R.Kishore Kumar and another.

¶6

…Petitioners.

¶7

And:

¶8

The Project Director, A.P. State AIDS Control Society, District Medical & Health Service Campus, Sulthanbazar, Koti, Hyderabad and another.

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.22942 of 2010

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent-authorities in not paying the arrears of the Annual Grade Increments to the petitioners for the period they worked on contract basis in terms of the Circular dated 21-2-2002, as highly illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondent-authorities to pay the arrears of Annual Grade Increments on par with others, for the period the petitioners worked by considering the representation dated 11.5.2010 in accordance with the circular dated 21-2-2002.

¶14

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

¶15

1^st petitioner was appointed as Data Entry Operator vide proceedings No.OMC/PMCT of HIV Project/2000, dated 18.7.2000 on consolidate pay of Rs.3,500/- w.e.f. 1-7-2000 and posted at the Government Maternity Hospital, Nayapool, Hyderabad and thereafter, the 2^nd petitioner was appointed by the respondent-authorities vide proceedings Rc.No.A4B/8321/PMCT/2001, dated 22-9-2001 as Research Officer, PMCT of HIV Project, at the same Government Maternity Hospital, Nayapool along with others and they joined in

¶16

service immediately @ Rs.12,000/- P.M., on consolidated basis.

¶17

Later in the year 2002, the PMCT project was converted to PPTCT Project and the nature of work and job chart is the same and the Project Officer/1^st respondent has to look after the administration and implementation of the project work under the control of 2^nd respondent. Both the petitioners continued in service till 29-2-2008 and they are entitled for Annual Grade Increments w.e.f. 1-1-2002 only as per the National AIDS Control Organization Circular dated 21-22002 @ Rs.300/- to Rs.500/-, but the annual increments w.e.f. 1-12002 were not released to its contractual employees till March, 2004 and released the annual grade increments from the month of April, 2004 till the month of October, 2006 and again from the month of November, 2006 till the date of termination of service i.e., February, 2008 but the petitioners were not paid along with others. The petitioners continued in service till February, 2008 and from 1^st March, 2008 onwards, they were not allowed to continue since the research wing of PPTCT Centre was windup.

¶18

Though the circular was issued on 21-2-2002, the respondents have not granted annual grade increments. In this view of the matter, the petitioners submitted representations and W.P.No.27525 of 2008 was filed before this Court by similarly situated candidates working as Lab Technicians and Counselors and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 6-10-2009 with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioners as per the proceedings dated 21-2-2002 issued by the Central Government, within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities released the arrears only to the petitioners in the said writ petition vide Rc.No.903/AIDS/2009, dated 5-1-2010 and 27-1-2010 but the respondent-authorities did not release the arrears to the petitioners herein.

¶19

Though the petitioners also filed a detailed representation on 11-5-2010 to the 1^st respondent-authority stating that

¶20

the 1^st petitioner worked as Data Entry Operator in PPCT of HIV Project at the Government Maternity Hospital, Nayapool w.e.f. 1-6-2000 to 29.2.2008, there is no action on the part of the respondent authorities so far.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶22

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the circular letter dated 21-2-2002, the petitioners are entitled for the arrears of annual grade increments but the respondent authorities have not implemented the said circular.

¶23

It is further contended that similarly situated candidates working as Lab Technicians and Counselors filed Writ Petition No.27525 of 2008 and this Court on 6-10-2009 disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities therein to consider the claim of the petitioners therein and in view of the said direction, the respondent-authorities therein released the arrears to the petitioners therein but did not release the arrears to the petitioners herein.

¶24

It is further contended that even though a representation dated 11-5-2010 was submitted to the 1^st respondent-authority stating that the 1^st petitioner worked as Data Entry Operator in PPCT of HIV Project at Government Maternity Hospital, Nayapool w.e.f. 1.6.2000 to 29.2.2008, no action is taken by the respondent-authority so far and in this view of the matter, the action of the respondent-authorities in not releasing the arrears of annual grade increments to the petitioners is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

A perusal of the affidavit goes to show that even though the petitioners submitted representation dated 11-5-2010 to the 1^st respondent to consider their case, no action was taken by the respondent authorities. Apart from that, the respondent authorities have not implemented the circular dated 21-2-2002.

¶26

In the present facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and

¶27

proper to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶28

________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 18-11-2011. Note: CC in three days. BO. Dvs

¶29

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.22942 of 2010

¶31

Dated 18-11-2011

R.Kishore Kumar v. The Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kishore Kumar v. The Project Director

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

N.V. Babu, Vs The Apsrtc

N. Bhaskar Rao Vs The a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

T. Murali Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Parasa Chandra Sekhar, Vs Smt. Arundhathi Bhattacharya

P. Venkateswarlu, Vs Apsrtc