Dismissed

B.Venkat Reddy, v. a.P.Society for Training and Employment Promotion

Telangana HC24 Sept 2013WP/7464/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld the Society's promotion of the petitioner from Loan Inspector to Assistant Manager/Accountant, ruling that holding an incharge post does not constitute a regular promotion. The petitioner was given the option to accept the promotion or continue in the incharge capacity while drawing salary from his substantive post.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner must either accept promotion to Assistant Manager/Accountant or continue as Incharge Manager drawing salary from substantive post.

B.Venkat Reddy, Vs a.P.Society for… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

Writ Petition No.7464 of 2000

¶5

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

The 1^st respondent-Society was created for the purpose of providing employment opportunities and guidance for the unemployed youth. It has branches all over the State at the District Headquarters. There used to be the posts of Managers in the District Units, and initially they were filled through deputation of other employees. Since that did not proved to be beneficial,

¶7

the employees of other departments were repatriated.

¶8

The eligible senior employees of the respective Districts were kept incharge of the posts of Managers, even while continuing them in the substantive vacancies. The petitioner, who was holding the post of Loan Inspector in the Nalgonda Unit, was kept incharge of the post of Manager.

¶9

Through proceedings dated 06-04-2000, the 1^st respondent promoted the Loan Inspectors and Senior Assistants in the respective District Units as Assistant Managers/Accountants. The petitioner was one such. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 06-04-2000. The petitioner contends that when he is already holding the post of Manager, there is no point in promoting him to the post of Assistant Manager/Accountant.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶11

It has already been mentioned that the posts of Managers were being handled by the officials from other departments. After such officials have been repatriated, no regular appointments were made for the posts of Managers. The mere fact that the petitioner was holding incharge of the post of Manager cannot be treated as a regular promotion to the post of Manager.

¶12

Taking into account the structure of the establishment,

¶13

the 1^st respondent has effected promotions of the eligible Senior Assistants and Loan Inspectors as Assistant Managers/Accountants. If the petitioner is not inclined to accept that post, he is free to do so. In such an event, he can continue as Incharge Manager, but shall be entitled to draw the salary from the substantive post held by him.

¶14

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner, either to accept the promotion to the post of Assistant Manager/Accountant, or to continue as Incharge Manager, if he is already holding it. In case he is acting as Incharge Manager, he shall be entitled to draw the salary from the substantive post and allowances, if any, allowed for the officiation of the post of Manager.

¶15

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

__________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶17

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶18

Dt.24-09-2013

¶19

B.Venkat Reddy, v. a.P.Society for Training and Employment Promotion

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Venkat Reddy, v. a.P.Society for Training and Employment Promotion

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

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Vs K. Shyam Sunder

Ravi Rama rao Vs The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City

Dr. v. Varalakshamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

K.Dhananjaneyulu, Vs a.P.Society for Training and Empoloyment PRomotion

R.Rajini Kanth, Vs Andhra Pradesh Society for Training and Employment

N.Venkateswara Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Society for Training and