Allowed

K.Penchalaiah v. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board

Telangana HC7 Mar 2014WA/1824/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the lower court's dismissal of the petitioner's claim for pay scale fixation. The court directed respondents to fix the petitioner's pay par with his junior within eight weeks, noting the petitioner was a retired 80-year-old.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the petitioner's case was directed to be considered for pay fixation par with his junior within eight weeks.

K.Penchalaiah Vs The Andhra Pradesh State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

(DATED 07-03-2014)

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶8

WA No.1824 OF 2002

Between:

K. Penchalaiah

….Appellant

And

The AP State Electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and another

¶14

Respondents

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶16

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶18

WA No.1824 OF 2002

¶19

JUDGMENT :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Chandraiah )

¶20

The grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant herein, as espoused in the writ petition, is to the effect that his junior’s pay scale is higher than the pay scale which he is entitled to draw. The appellant claims his scale of pay ought to have been fixed on par with the scale of pay of his immediate junior who has been given special grade promotion.

¶21

2. It is evident from the memo issued by the respondentBoard vide Memo No.DMIR/PO.2.3/1/83-22, dated 01-04-1986 and also orders issued in BP Ms.No.623, dated 19-6-1984, the pay of the senior employee in the higher category has been protected on par with the pay of his junior in the lower category who was appointed to selection grade post. However, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition merely based on the

¶22

counter averments to the effect that the appellant’s pay scale has been fixed lower than his immediate junior on account of the fact that he has suffered a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in the year 1974-75 vide Board proceedings SE/O/NLR/Estt./C1/D No.243/74, dated 11-061974.

¶23

3. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

4. In the order impugned by the writ petitioner, in the writ petition, a reference has been made for rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to para 2 (i) of Board’s Memo No.DM(IR)/PO/2-3/1-83-12, dated 5/8-8-1985. However, Board’s Memo No.DM(IR)/PO/2-3/1-83-12, dated 5/8-8-1985 itself has been withdrawn by Memo No.DMIR/PO.2.3/1/33-22, dated 01-04-1986. In that view of the matter, there is total non application of mind on the part of the respondents in passing the order impugned in the writ petition.

¶25

5. In the light of the above, the impugned order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed with a

¶26

direction to the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner-appellant with regard to the fixation of his scale of pay par with his immediate junior in terms of Board’s Memo Memo No.DMIR/PO.2.3/1/33-22, dated 01-04-1986 and also orders issued in BP Ms.No.623, dated 19-6-1984, which has been specifically referred to in Memo No.DMIR/PO.2.3/1/33-22, dated 01-04-1986. Considering the fact that the writ petition is of the year 1992 and it is long back the writ petitioner had retired from service and as on date he is stated to be 80 years old, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents complete the above exercise within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶28

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶29

Dated: 07-03-2014 NRG

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶31

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶33

WA No.1824 OF 2002

¶34

( per GC,J )

¶35

Dated: 07-03-2014 NRG

K.Penchalaiah v. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Penchalaiah v. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board

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

Mr. Y.U.Chander, Vs Union of India

M/s. Twin Cities Steel Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Hansa Overseas Enterprises, Hyderabad. Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Income Tax Guntur Vs Chegu Krishna Murthy and Co. Guntur

The Commissioner of Incometax Ap Hyd Vs Kohinoor Hatchieries P Ltd. Hyd

The Commi.of Income-Tax Rajahmundry Vs Y.Rama Krishna Murthy