Allowed

Mynam Yesuraju v. The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Dane

Telangana HC16 Aug 2011WP/6203/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition by shareholders of a cooperative sugar factory challenging the continuance of a retired Chief Chemist on contract basis beyond superannuation, directing the appointing authority to fill the vacancy immediately.

What did the court decide?

The orders enabling the continuance of the 4th respondent as Chief Chemist are set aside; the 1st respondent is directed to appoint a new Chief Chemist within one month.

Mynam Yesuraju Vs The Commissioner and Director of… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

*** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY**

¶2

+WRIT PETITION No. 6203 of 2011

¶3

% Dated 16.08.2011

¶4

# Mynam Yesuraju and another

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

$ The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner and 4 & others

¶8

… Respondents.

¶9

! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.V.V.N. Narayana Rao

¶10

^Counsel for Respondents: Learned G.P. for Industries for R1 Sri. S.R. Ashok, Counsel for R2 & R3 Sri. C. Aditya, Counsel for R5

¶11

<GIST:

¶12

>HEAD NOTE:

¶13

? Cases referred:

¶14

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6203 of 2011

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The 3^rd respondent is the Co-operative Sugar Factory at Etikoppaka, Visakhapatnam District. It is fully controlled by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. There exists a post of Chief Chemist in the common cadre of the 3^rd respondent. The 1^st respondent is the appointing authority for that post as per the Rules framed

¶17

under Section 116-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The 4^th respondent was holding that post and he attained the age of superannuation on 30-09-2008.

¶18

On a representation made by the 3^rd respondent, the 1^st respondent permitted it to continue the 4^th respondent on contract basis. That arrangement is being carried out from year to year and as of now, the 4^th respondent is continuing in the post of Chief Chemist with effect from 1110-2010. When he retired from service, his pay was Rs.26,486/- and it is stated that subsequently revisions have taken place. At present, his emoluments are enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per month.

¶19

The petitioners are the shareholders and members of the 3^rd respondent-Sugar Factory. They raise objection for continuance of the 4^th respondent in the said post. According to them, it is not at all in the interest of the Society, to continue persons in such important posts beyond

¶20

the date of superannuation, that too by enhancing the emoluments. It is also stated that they have raised the issue in General Body meeting, but on account of the influence of certain groups, the 4^th respondent is being continued.

¶21

The 5^th respondent is the Trade Unions Joint Action Committee of the workers in the 3^rd respondent Factory. They too raise objection for continuance of the 4^th respondent in that post. According to them, there are several eligible candidates for being considered for the post of Chief Chemist and on account of their non-consideration, a semblance of stagnation and disinterestedness is developing among the employees.

¶22

Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent, S.R.Ashok, learned senior counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, and Sri C. Aditya, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent. Though R-4 is served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance.

¶23

It is not in dispute that the 4^th respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30-09-2008 and retired from the post of Chief Chemist. The 1^st respondent was required to take necessary steps immediately, if not well in advance, to fill the vacancy. An important post of that nature ought not to have been dealt with, in such a manner. Maybe, on being impressed by the performance of the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent addressed letters to the 1^st respondent seeking permission to continue him on contract basis. Such a permission, if at all, ought to have been accorded for a brief spell, so that a perfect change over in the incumbency

¶24

takes place. The reasons stated by the 1^st respondent in not taking steps for filling the post are totally untenable.

¶25

One of the contentions urged by the 1^st respondent is that as against 11 sugar factories in the State, only four Chief Chemists are working. In a way, this reflects the inefficiency of the 1^st respondent in filing the posts at the right time. It is on account of the callous attitude exhibited by the government that quite a large number of cooperative sugar factories in the state have sustained losses and showing that as an excuse, considerable number of them are sold at throwaway prices, sacrificing the larger public interest. It is rather unfortunate that the 1^st respondent has chosen to plead his own inefficiency, as a justification for the illegality committed by him.

¶26

In every organisation, particularly where different stages exist, the persons in the lower cadre expect promotions as and when the incumbents in the higher cadres retire. In a way, the persons expecting entry into higher posts would feel elated in case they are appointed or promoted, as the case may be, to the higher post and would work with zeal. If the higher posts are either kept vacant for a longer period or if the retired employees are permitted to continue in them, several negative developments would take place. Firstly, the retired employee, maybe with a few rare exceptions, would feel that he is indispensable for the organisation and would develop a vested interest. Secondly, the persons, who are otherwise entitled to be promoted or appointed, would get discouraged, if not driven to frustration. It is rather unfortunate that of late, in the Government and its organisations, important positions are being permitted to be handled by retired persons either on ad hoc or on contract

¶27

basis, resulting in the consequences mentioned above. Such persons hardly have any conviction or commitment for the development of the organisation, and taking advantage of their position, they act mostly to advance their personal interest.

¶28

Had the 1^st respondent been sincere to ensure that the factory runs well, he would have appointed a person in accordance with the Rules and at the most asked the 4^th respondent to impart training to the new incumbent, if necessary. Instead, the 4^th respondent is being continued for the past three years as though he is indispensable for the Factory and that except him, no other person is capable. It is such misplaced sympathies or undue favouritism that would spoil the organization over the period, though some persons may get immediate benefit or satisfaction. This Court takes a serious view of the inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent in appointing an incumbent in the post of Chief Chemist in the 3^rd respondent factory.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the orders issued from time to time by the 1^st respondent enabling the 3^rd respondent to continue the 4^th respondent as Chief Chemist are set aside.

¶30

The 1^st respondent shall take necessary steps to appoint a Chief Chemist for the 3^rd respondent Factory within one month from today. The 4^th respondent shall not be continued beyond that period.

¶31

If necessity arises for any arrangement, it shall be open to the parties to approach this Court by filing an application. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

16-08-2011

¶33

Note: Issue C.C. in one week (B/o) Prv LR copy to be marked.

Mynam Yesuraju v. The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Dane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mynam Yesuraju v. The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Dane

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

B. Ramanatha Reddy Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Mohd.Akber Ali Vs The Singareni Colleries company Limited, rep.by its

J.Vasantha, W/o Buchi Reddy, Vs The Project Director

B.Prakash, S/o Ramchandraiah, Vs Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University

Moravineni Prabhakar Rao Vs Moravineni Seetha Rathnam

Malothu Venkanna Vs A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd.