The Hon'ble Justice dismissed Writ Petition No.10616 of 2013 as consented to by counsel. The order directed respondents to apply principles from W.P. No.8095 of 2013 concerning financial incentives for employee stagnation.
Disposal of the writ petition as consented to; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10616 OF 2013
ORDER:
Learned counsel appearing on either side would submit that the cause in this writ petition is almost akin to the cause decided by me in W.P. No.8095 of 2013 on 19.03.2013, wherein, it has been held as under:
It must be remembered that, what is attempted as a policy by the Corporation is, relieving the stagnation of the employees by providing for additional financial incentives. Therefore, a mere transfer from one region to another, or from one seniority unit to another need not come in the way, unless it could be demonstrated that, had the employee continued in his former unit, he would not have been stagnated for the length of period to enable him to earn the stagnation financial benefits.
Only in an event that, if the employee has continued in his former unit, he would have earned the benefit of moving upwardly due to availability of vacancies can perhaps legitimately neutralize the claim of anyone for financial benefits fuelled by stagnation. In other words, a benefit of upward movement has been foregone by the employee concerned by his option to move away to another unit of appointment alone will disentitle him to seek the benefit of financial upgradation, but not otherwise. Hence, the respondents are directed to examine as to whether the petitioners, if they had continued in their former units of appointments, would have earned the financial upgradation due to stagnation or not. If the finding is that, they would have earned an upgradation structurally, which enured to the benefit of their juniors because the petitioners have moved away from the said unit, then alone the petitioners can be denied the benefit of financial upgradation, whether the stagnation resulted in the earlier unit of appointment or the subsequent unit of appointment, therefore, pales itself into insignificance. Let this exercise be completed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and the financial benefits be accorded to all such eligible persons within a further period of thirty days from today. It is needless for me to observe that, entire exercise must be regulated in accordance with the circular instructions passed on by the A.P.S.R.T.C.
Subject to the above said terms, the present Writ Petition also stands disposed of as consented to by the learned counsel appearing on either side. No costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
12th April, 2013
MVA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether reliance on the principle laid down in W.P. No.8095 of 2013 regarding financial incentives for employee stagnation can neutralize the claim for financial benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No.8095 of 2013Followed¶3
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
