Allowed

Smt. v.Prameela Rani, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Jun 2013WP/25201/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of Article 226 power, allowed the writ petition challenging proceedings regarding the petitioner's seniority. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to seniority from her appointment order date and directed the respondents to fix her seniority accordingly. The impugned proceedings were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned proceedings were set aside; and the respondents were directed to place the petitioner's name above the unofficial respondents in the seniority list.

Smt. v.Prameela Rani, Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25201 OF 1999

¶3

Date:19-06-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. V. Prameela Rani. - - - Petitioner.

¶6

And

¶7

The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary (U & IAY) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. - - - Respondents.

¶8

This Court made the following :

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.25201 OF 1999

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A3/1566/99, dated 31.08.1999, issued by the Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural Justice under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Heard the arguments of Sri M. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.V. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for A.P. State Housing Corporation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 16-12-1984 and she joined in the service on 01-011985. It is also her contention that the respondents appointed her on daily wage basis and that her services have been regularized with effect from 01-01-1985. Her grievance is that the unofficial respondents herein have been shown as seniors to the petitioner.

¶15

In support of her contentions, she has referred to Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). According to Rule 3 (j) of the Rules in Chapter – I, “Joining Time” means the time allowed to an employee to join the new post to which he or she stands posted. According to definition of “Duty”, a person is said to be on duty when he or she is on joining time,

¶16

as per Rule 3 (i) (ii) of the Rules. She has also referred to Rule 4 of the Rules in Chapter – II, which deals with the time allowed for joining on first appointment. Rule 4 (a) is as follows :

¶17

“4. THE TIME ALLOWED FOR JOINING ON FIRST APPOINTMENT :

¶18

(a) Direct recruitment : A candidate selected by direct recruitment shall join duty in the post for which he is selected within Forty Five days from the date of receipt of the Appointment Order, failing which his or her name shall be removed from the list of selected candidates.”

¶19

She has also referred to Rule 15 (a) and (b) of the Rules, which

¶20

are as follows:

¶21

“15. SENIORITY:

¶22

(a) An employee, whose services have been regularized in the Corporation shall rank for seniority in his or her grade according to his or her date of regularization in the Grade. The Corporation shall prepare the seniority lists for each categories of posts and communicate to the respective employees of the Corporation once in three years.

¶23

(b) The seniority of a person in service class or category of post shall unless he or she has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his or her first appointment to such service, class category. If any portion of the service of such person does not count for probation, his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation.”

¶24

Thus, the main submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the service of the petitioner has to be counted from the date of her appointment order dated 16-12-1984 and in view of the same, the petitioner is senior to the unofficial respondents. It is further submitted that the unofficial respondents can claim seniority only from 01-01-1985, whereas, the petitioner can claim seniority from the date of her appointment. It is also submitted that the contention of the unofficial respondents that the petitioner has joined service in the afternoon of 01-01-1985, loses its importance in view of the above Rule position.

¶25

The case of the official respondents is that the petitioner has joined duty in the afternoon of 01.01.1985 and as such she received the salary for a period of 30 days for the month of January, 1985 and therefore she is not entitled for the relief claimed. The main submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the official respondents is that since the petitioner joined service in the afternoon of 01.01.1985, she cannot be treated as senior to the unofficial respondents since the services of the unofficial respondents have been regularized with effect from 01.01.1985.

¶26

According to the petitioner, she was given appointment order on 16.12.1984 and she joined the service in the afternoon of 01.01.1985. But, as seen from Rule 4 (a) of the Rules, a candidate selected under direct recruitment shall join duty in the post for which he or she is selected within 45 days from the date of receipt of the Appointment Order. Thus 45 days time is given for the candidates joining on first appointment under direct recruitment. However, as per Section 3 (i) of the Rules in Chapter – I, a person is said to be on duty when he or she is on joining time. It is further clarified that as per Rule 15 (b) of the Rules in Chapter - II, the seniority of a person in service class or category of post shall, unless he or she has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his or her first appointment to such service, class, category. Since the date of appointment seems to be the criteria as per above referred Rule 15(b) and the petitioner has joined the services within the joining time allowed by the Rules and she is deemed to be on duty with effect from 16.12.1984 and therefore it is deemed that the petitioner is in service from 16.12.1984. Therefore, the official respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the petitioner keeping in mind the date of her first appointment i.e. 16.12.1984.

¶27

Accordingly, with the above observation, the Writ Petition is

¶28

allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings No.A3/1566/99, dated 31.08.1999 issued by the second respondent and as such the official respondents are directed to place the name of the petitioner above the un-official respondents in the seniority list with all consequential benefits.

¶29

As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶30

_____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:19-06-2013. Dsh.

¶31

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶32

105

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.25201 OF 1999

¶34

June 19, 2013

¶35

DSH

Smt. v.Prameela Rani, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v.Prameela Rani, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Y.Yellaiah, Vs State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary Food

Ece Indutries Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Upadranath, Vs Transmissopm Corporation of a.P.Limited

M/s Max Pharma Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Prdesh

Mr. K. Mahenderkar Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. (Housing Development)

S. Krishna Murthy Vs The Principal Secretariat to Govt.(Housing Development)