Dismissed

K.Rambabu v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Telangana HC3 Sept 2012WP/16772/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-inclusion of his claim for revised seniority based on an earlier engagement date (23.04.1988 vs 01.09.1988). Corp later rejected claim found no proof of prior appointment. Court dismissed petition noting pending appeal option.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no costs; petitioner at liberty to seek legal remedy against Managing Director's order.

K.Rambabu Vs Govt of Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 16772 of 2007

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed essentially complaining that the 2^nd respondent Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Health & Medical Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short, henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’) is not finalizing the seniority of the petitioner, duly taking his initial date of engagement in the service of the Corporation as 23.04.1988 instead of 01.09.1988 and consequently, to place him at Sl.No. 1 in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers and also in the list of Deputy Executive Engineers in the service of the Corporation.

¶5

Pursuant to the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No. 582, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (N2) Department, dated 09.11.1994, permitting the Corporation to regularize the services of 34 individuals, whose names were mentioned in the Annexure to the said Order, upon their completing five years of service as on 25.11.1993, the date stipulated for the purpose of regularization of services of temporary employees in G.O.Ms.No. 212, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.04.1994, the services of the petitioner herein came to be regularized treating his date of appointment as 01.09.1988. Sarva Sri K. Sreenivasa Rao, V. Chitti Babu and C. Laxma Reddy were treated to have been in the service of the Corporation with effect from 26.05.1988, 10.06.1988 and 10.06.1988 respectively. Since those dates happened to be earlier to 01.09.1988, which was said to be the date from which the petitioner was functioning with the Corporation, the services of the above three individuals were also regularized simultaneously, but their names

¶6

figured at Sl.Nos. 1, 2 and 3, whereas the name of the petitioner figured at Sl.No.4. The petitioner then appears to have submitted a detailed representation on 18.03.2002 setting out that he was working in the Corporation from 23.04.1988 onwards and hence, his name should figure at Sl.No.1, but not at Sl.No.4. In view of the representation of the petitioner, a proceeding was drawn by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 25.04.2002, requiring Sarva Sri Sreenivasa Rao, Chitti Babu and Laxma Reddy to submit their representations as to why the petitioner’s services should not be treated to have been regularized on the basis of the service rendered by him to the Corporation from 23.04.1988. The petitioner contended that the follow up action has not been taken by the Corporation. Hence, he moved the present Writ Petition.

¶7

Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.A.V. Padmanabham, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and Sri M.Y.K. Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

¶8

Along with the detailed counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, Sri P.A.V. Padmanabham, the learned Standing Counsel, has enclosed a set of material papers in which the order said to have been passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 27.12.2007 has been enclosed at page No. 8. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

¶9

“ On a careful consideration of the representation of Sri K. Rambabu to place him at Sl.No.1 instead of Sl.No. 4 in AEE/DEE cadre, and the material available on record, his date of appointment is considered as 01.09.1988 i.e. as considered at the time of regularization of his services, vide G.O.Ms.No. 582, dated 09.11.1994. Further, there is no proof of his appointment by the competent authority prior to 01.09.1988, as claimed by the said individual hence his claim is rejected.

¶10

A copy of the final seniority list is hereby communicated to all the individuals whose names are figured in the final seniority list.”

¶11

The contents of the above order dated 27.12.2007 thus make it abundantly clear that the case and claim of the petitioner has received consideration, but however, the Corporation has come to a conclusion that there is no proof of his appointment by the competent authority of the Corporation any time prior to 01.09.1988, as claimed by him and hence, his case for placing him at Sl.No. 1 instead of Sl.No. 4 in the final seniority list was rejected.

¶12

In view of the orders passed by the Corporation rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it is always open to him to agitate the correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by the Corporation. It will be appropriate to notice that the present Writ Petition was instituted on 03.08.2007, whereas the order referred to supra has been passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 27.12.2007 i.e. during the pendency of this Writ Petition. Therefore, if the petitioner feels that he is aggrieved by the decision of the Managing Director referred to supra, he is at liberty to seek such legal remedies as are available to him under law.

¶13

With this, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand disposed of.

¶14

---------------------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶15

3^rd September 2012

¶16

ksld

K.Rambabu v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rambabu v. Govt of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

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

Smt. Sunitha Dixit, Vs Sri v. Manohar

P.J.Feevaratnam, Vs Andhra Bank

M. Chenganna, Vs The Industrial Tribunal-I

A.Krishnaiah Vs B.K.Raghava Reddy

S. Narsimhloo Vs Apsrtc., Rep by its Managing Director

T.Venkata Sudha Vs The Commissioner Endowments Department