Allowed

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

Telangana HC24 Sept 2013WP/7747/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of writ petitions filed by Managers of a Government of Andhra Pradesh society. The Court held that regular appointees or promoters are entitled to the pay scale and allowances of the Manager post, while officiating appointees are entitled only to their substantive pay and stipulated Manager allowances.

What did the court decide?

Regular appointees/promotees to get Manager pay scale from date of appointment; officiating appointees to get substantive post pay only.

R.Rajini Kanth, Vs Andhra Pradesh Society… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.6231, 6232, 7159, 7747 and 7866 OF 2000

¶4

COMMON ORDER:

¶5

The 1^st respondent is a society established by the Government of Andhra Pradesh with an objective of helping the unemployed persons to secure employment of different categories. The branches are also established in every District. At one stage, there existed an element of uncertainty as to whether the rules framed by the

¶6

1^st respondent to govern the service conditions of its employees must be followed by the branches in the Districts also. This Court took the view that the rules that are adopted by the 1^st respondent must be followed by the District Units also.

¶7

For every District Unit, there existed a post of Manager. According to the respondents, the said post was being filled through deputation from other departments. On finding that the process of deputation is not working to the benefit of the society, the officers borrowed from the other departments were surrendered to the respective departments. However, the Senior Assistants who are functioning in the District Units were promoted to officiate the post of Managers. The disputes arose as to the scale of pay that is to be extended to the persons holding the post of Managers on such officiating basis. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12272 of 1992 and batch directed the respondents to consider the representations of the affected persons in this regard.

¶8

The 1^st respondent issued proceedings, dated 06.04.2000, directing that the persons who are working as Managers on officiating basis shall be entitled to draw their salaries against the substantive posts. The said proceedings are challenged in this batch of writ petitions.

¶9

Heard Sri M.V.K. Viswanadham, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G. Ashok Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶10

The petitioners assert that they have been appointed to the post of Managers on substantive basis

¶11

and that they were not extended the benefit of pay scale attached to such post. The 1^st respondent, however, submits that as the post of Managers became vacant on account of surrender of the persons, whose services were borrowed from other departments, the Senior Assistants or other categories of employees depending on their capacity were kept in-charge of the post of Managers.

¶12

In case the petitioners or any of them have been appointed on regular basis to the post of Manager, be it by way of promotion or transfer, they are not only entitled to the pay scale attached to it, but also the other allowances attached to that post. If on the other hand, they were appointed on officiating basis, it is but natural that they shall be entitled to draw only the pay scales of their substantive posts as well as any allowances that may be stipulated for the post of Manager. This, however, is a matter for verification.

¶13

Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of directing that:

¶14

a) in case, the petitioners or any of them have been promoted to the post of Managers in respective District Units by the appointing authority, in accordance with law, on regular basis, they shall be extended the benefit of pay scales adopted to that post from the date of such appointment.

¶15

b) in case, the appointment is only on officiating basis, they shall be entitled to draw the salary of the substantive posts held by them, as well as the other allowances that

¶16

may be stipulated for the post of Manager.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions shall stand disposed of.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

____________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶20

_____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶21

24.09.2013 KH

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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

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

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