Allowed

The Superintending Engineer, v. r. Suryanarayana

Telangana HC12 Mar 2012WP/13466/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Administrative Tribunal's order allowing an employee's appeal. The Court held that despite erroneous redesignation, the respondent was entitled to be placed in the Grade-IV category as per 1980 orders, making his subsequent promotion to Grade-II illegal. The Tribunal was remanded to pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tribunal order set aside; Writ Petition Memorial to be dismissed.

The Superintending Engineer, Vs r… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.13466 of 2004

¶4

DT.12-03-2012 Between: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secsretary Pankaj Dwivedi, S/o SlK.Dwivedi, … Petitioner And T.V.ChalapathiRao, S/o Mutyam & ors … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao

¶5

Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following Judgment:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.13466 of 2004

¶8

JUDGMENT: Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)

¶9

This writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the interlocutory stage at the consent of both the parties pursuant to the W.V.M.P filed by the 1^st respondent herein seeking to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 22-4-2004.

¶10

Aggrieved by the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (For short “the Tribunal) dated 10-04-2003 allowing O.A.No.3915 of 1996 of the respondent, this writ petition is filed. It is the case of the respondent/applicant that he was appointed as Work Inspector Grade.III by proceedings dated 15-4-1978 and joined duty on 27-04-1978 in Wyra Circle. Thereafter, he was promoted as Work Inspector Grade-II by the Superintending Engineer, N.S.C Circle, Jaggayyapeta by proceeding dated 12-06-1985 based on the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.370 dated 4-8-1994 as he is entitled for promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II and as such he had been discharging the duties of Grade-II. While so, the Superintending Engineer, I & CAD, Irrigation Circle, Bobbili vide proceedings No.2734/M/AS/A/1/E.15 dated 4-3-1996 reverted the respondent herein to Work Inspector Grade-IV under the instructions of the Engineer-inChief vide his Memo dated 19-1-1996. Aggrieved by the same,

¶11

O.A.No.3915 of 1996 was filed to set aside the said proceedings.

¶12

A counter has been filed stating that the respondent herein was

¶13

initially appointed as Work Inspector Grade-III and he joined the duty on 27-4-1978 in Wyra Circle and requires to be redesignated as per the orders of the government in G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 26-6-1980 as Work Inspector Grade IV as the Government issued the said orders in the said G.O providing common designation with uniform qualifications, scales of pay to the different grades of Work Inspectors working in all the engineering departments under the State Government. As per the said orders, the Work Inspector Grade III has to be redesignated as Grade IV. Hence, it is stated that instead of redesignating the respondent as Work Inspector Grade IV with effect from 22-6-1980, he was given promotion as Work Inspector Grade II with effect from 12-6-1985, and therefore, the orders issued by the Superintending Engineer dated 12-6-1985 are legal and valid.

¶14

The Tribunal by the impugned order while narrating the contentions of both the parties and without dealing with any of the contentions and without assigning any reason, made the following order:

¶15

“Finally, in the counter, it is stated that there are no merits in the O.A., for the reasons stated above and as such the O.A., is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

As could be seen from the allegations made by both the parties, it is clear that even by 1978, the applicant was appointed as Gr.II Work Inspector and the G.O.Ms.No.226 was issued on 26.6.1980. Therefore, the impugned order prima facie is bade in law. In the result, the reversion order is set aside. Accordingly, the O.A is allowed.”

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶18

The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as Work Inspector Grade-III vide proceedings dated 15-4-1978 and joined the duty on 27-4-1978. Subsequently, he was promoted as Work Inspector Grade-II on 12-06-1985 without any reference to the orders of the government in G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 26-6-1980. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 26-6-1980 and as per the aforesaid orders, the existing designation was directed to be revised and whoever has been working as Work Inspector Grade-I his revised designation must be Work Inspector Grade II and similarly whoever has been working as Work Inspector Grade II his revised designation must be Work Inspector Grade-III. Similarly, the designation of the Work Inspector Grade-III has to be revised as Work Inspector Grade-IV.

¶19

In implementation of the said G.O, the Government issued another orders in G.O.Ms.No.370, Irrigation Department, dated 4-8-1984. Para 3 of the said G.O reads as follows:

¶20

“Government after careful examination and taking into consideration the discussion held in the meeting with the Officials of all Engineering Depts. Of the State Govt. direct that:-

¶21

i) The qualifications prescribed for various grades of W.I’s vide G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P dt. 26.6.80 should apply to new entrants only, and all initial recruitment of provided should as per G.O.Ms.No.226 Government of persons should be as per G.O.Ms.No.226 I & P dt. 26.6.1980 ie., who fulfill the educational qualifications prescribed therein.

¶22

ii) The existing personnel who are already categorized under G.O.Ms.No.107 dt. 7.2.74 should be brought into the redesignated categories as shown in the State though the personnel as on 26.6.80 do not possess the qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.226 I&P dated 26.6.80.

¶23

iii) After bringing the existing WI’s to the redesignated grades ordered in G.O.Ms.No.226 dt. 26.6.80 as per item (ii) above,

¶24

they may be allowed one step promotion i.e., to the next higher grade only as and when vacancies arise and subject to their putting in service as follows:-

¶25

Vide as now redesignated in G.O.Ms.No.226 I&P dt. 26.6.80	Service to be pout in the preredesignated grade, or in the pre-redesignated grade together, as the case.
Work Inspector GR.I Work Inspector Gr.II Work Inspector Gr.III	Must have had experience as W.I. Gr.II for 10 years for non- diploma holders and 6 years for diploma holders. Must have had 3 year experience as W.I. Gr.III. Must have had 5 year experience as W.I. Gr.IV.

¶26

This order issued with the concurrence of Fin. & Plg. Department vide their U.O.No.23045/155/PRC.84.”

¶27

Pursuant to issuing of G.O.Ms.No.370, the impugned order dated 4-3-1986 was passed.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the respondent was admittedly appointed as Work Inspector Grade-III with effect from 26-7-1984 and he requires to be redesignated as Work Inspector Grade-II as per orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 26-6-1980, but he was erroneously redesignated as Work Inspector Grade-III with effect from 30-06-1980 without reference to G.O.Ms.No.226. As the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 26-6-1980 are got to be implemented, which provided common designation with a uniform qualification, scales of pay to different grades of Work Inspectors working in all the engineering departments under the State Government, the Work Inspectors Special Grade I, II, III working in the Irrigation Departments were redesignated as Work Inspectors Grade

¶29

II, Grade III, Grade IV respectively. Hence, the redesignation of respondent herein in the cadre of Work Inspector Grade III with effect from 26-6-1980 allowing one step promotion from the Work Inspector Grade III to category of Work Inspector Grade II with effect from 12-6-1985 is not correct as he was working as Work Inspector Grade III as on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.226 dated

¶30

26-6-1980 and he should have been redesignated as Work Inspector Grade IV with effect from 22-6-1980, and therefore, the Superintending Engineer rightly rectified the mistake and thus the orders passed by the Superintending Engineer are legal and valid.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioner has not questioned the validity of G.O.Ms.No.226 or G.O.Ms.No.370. As per the aforesaid G.Os, the respondent is entitled to be redesignated from the date of issuance of G.Os as Work Inspector Grade-IV, and therefore, he is entitled for one next step promotion as Grade-III and has been rightly designated as Grade-IV with effect from 22-6-1980 and he is entitled for promotion in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.370 dated 4-8-1994. Thus, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the Superintending Engineer redesignating the respondent as Work Inspector Grade IV as per G.O.Ms.No.226 dated 266-1980 with effect from 26-6-1980 and one step promotion to the category of Work Inspector Grade III with effect from 4-8-1984 is in accordance with the law.

¶32

For the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 10-4-2003 made in O.A.No.3915 of 1996. Consequently, the W.P.M.P stands dismissed. No costs.

¶33

______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J

¶34

_______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J

¶35

Dt:12-03-2012 grk

The Superintending Engineer, v. r. Suryanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintending Engineer, v. r. Suryanarayana

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

P. Veera Raghuvulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Chinna Narshima Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its

Battepati Ramamohan Rao Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

P. Eswaraiah, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

Andhra Pradesh Public Servie Commission, Vs T.V. Chalapathi Rao

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs S. Pratap