Disposed

P.P.Venkata Ramana v. The Executive Director (Hyderabad, Zone)

Telangana HC24 Dec 2013WP/6782/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning the petitioner's seniority in APSRTC. The issue was promotion parity in Greater Hyderabad Zone after regional bifurcation. The Court directed the Corporation to consider the petitioner for promotion treating his seniority as continuous.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for promotion on par with juniors in Greater Hyderabad Zone treating seniority as continuous.

P.P.Venkata Ramana Vs The Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 6782 OF 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks for placement of the petitioner in the final seniority list dated 20.9.2001 in accordance with his earlier option.

¶5

There were Bhagyanagar Region and Golconda Region in APSRTC (‘the Corporation’ for short). In 1995 both the regions were merged. Consequent upon the merger, common seniority list of the employees of various cadres were prepared. However, in 1998, the merged regions were bifurcated once again as Hyderabad City Region and Hyderabad Zone. While the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Hyderabad City Region took part of Bhagyanagar and Golconda Regions, the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submitted that both Bhagyanagar and Golconda Regions fell in the Hyderabad Zone. Hyderabad City Region was also redesignated as Greater Hyderabad Zone.

¶6

It would appear that most of the employees opted out to be in the Hyderabad City Region, otherwise known as Greater Hyderabad Zone. The petitioner was one among them. The petitioner was one of the various candidates, who opted out for Greater Hyderabad Zone, who could not be accommodated. The petitioner along with others was kept in waiting list. Subsequently, a common seniority list was issued through notification dated 30.5.2001 accommodating only 9 of the wait list candidates in the Hyderabad City Region/Greater Hyderabad Zone. The petitioner figured therein at Serial No. 106. The seniority list was re-drawn on 20.9.2001. The petitioner again figured at Serial No. 106 in the final seniority list of Junior Assistants (Personnel).

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by oversight, the petitioner was transferred to Hyderabad Zone on 21.2.2005. The petitioner sought for interim orders in this Writ Petition. Interim orders were passed on 7.3.2005 suspending the order of transferring the petitioner to Hyderabad Zone. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents-Corporation submitted that the transfer of the petitioner to the Hyderabad Zone was not a mistaken order

¶8

but was in the process of rationalisation. Be it noted that the petitioner continued in the Hyderabad City Region, i.e., Greater Hyderabad Zone. The learned counsel for the petitioner now contends that as the petitioner is in the cadre of Greater Hyderabad Zone, he is entitled to be promoted on par with his juniors. There is no dispute that the petitioner is in Greater Hyderabad Zone. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the promotion on par with his juniors. The learned Standing Counsel in fact pointed out that the petitioner would have been entitled to promotion either in the Hyderabad Zone or in the Greater Hyderabad Zone depending upon his seniority. As the petitioner is in the Greater Hyderabad Zone, he is entitled to be promoted on par with his juniors in terms of the integrated seniority list that was prepared on 30.5.2001 and 20.9.2001.

¶9

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directed the respondent-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on par with his juniors in Greater Hyderabad Zone treating his seniority continuously in Greater Hyderabad Zone right from the time of bifurcation. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶10

DR.JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶11

DATE: 24.12.2013 KA

P.P.Venkata Ramana v. The Executive Director (Hyderabad, Zone)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Venkata Ramana v. The Executive Director (Hyderabad, Zone)

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

Sri.Rakesh Kumar, No.930550097, Vs Union of India

D.Venkat Ram Reddy , Pratap Reddy (died) Vs The Dist. Collector, Mahabubangar Dist.

Chinna Geetha Devi Vs Mididoddi Shankaraiah

The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Vs Chairman-Cum- Presiding Officer

P.P.Venkataramana Vs Sri Purushotham Naik

E.Rama Rao Vs Smt. K.sunita