The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, v. N.M. Kodandapani

Telangana HC29 Jan 2014WA/2013/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment modifies the order of the learned single Judge in a writ appeal filed by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD). The Division Bench directed the Devasthanam to treat writ petitioners as converted Senior Assistants after three years. The High Court modified the Single Judge's order directing the Devasthanam to extend the benefit of deemed conversion granted to seven other individuals to

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to extend the benefit of deemed conversion granted to seven other individuals to the writ petitioners and consider them for promotion to Superintendent post.

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

W.A.NO.2013 OF 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶4

Heard the Special Standing Counsel for the appellant - Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short ‘the Devasthanam’) and the counsel for the respondents.

¶5

2. The respondents herein are the writ petitioners and the appellant – Devasthanam is the respondent in the writ petition.

¶6

3. The writ petitioners were working as U. D. Stenographers in the Devasthanam. A combined seniority list of U.D Stenographers and Senior Assistants was prepared and promotions were given based on the said seniority list. Writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9908/2007 and 26242/2006, were filed challenging the provisional and final seniority lists of Senior Assistants and U.D Stenographers and by common order dated 7.9.2007, the learned single Judge directed that the combined seniority is not correct and that the U.D. Stenographers shall be converted as Senior Assistants after they put up three years of service as U.D. Stenographers and that from the date of such conversion, they shall be considered in the seniority of Senior Assistants. In the writ appeals in W.A.No.831 and 851 of 2007 and W.P.Nos.28282 of 2007 and 8530 of 2008, the directions of the learned single Judge to maintain seniority list of Seniority Assistants and not combined seniority list of U.D.

¶7

Stenographers, was confirmed by the Division Bench. Pending writ appeals, the present writ petitioners were promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Superintendent. As the seniority list was revised on 10.11.2010, reversion of the writ petitioners from the post of Superintendents, became necessary. The Devastanam issued proceedings in Roc.No.E1/19416/2011 dated 15.2.2012 reverting the 3^rd writ petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant. Challenging the proceedings dated 15.2.2012 writ petition in W.P.No.4889/2012 has been filed. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by order dated 24.10.2013 and operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶8

“Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent – TTD to treat the petitioners as having been converted into Senior Assistants with effect from the dates on which they completed their respective 3 years of service as U.D. Stenographers and taking it as the determining factor for the determination of the seniority, the respondent – TTD shall consider the case of the petitioners for repromoting the petitioners as Superintendents in the event they are entitled to the same in accordance with the seniority as indicated above. No costs.”

¶9

4. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellant – Devasthanam.

¶10

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – Devasthanam submitted that the appellant is aggrieved with only that portion of the order of the learned single Judge wherein and whereby it was directed to treat the writ petitioners

¶11

as having been converted into Senior Assistants with effect from the dates on which they completed their respective three years of service as U.D. Stenographers. He submitted that it is a fact that by proceedings No.E1/1409/2001 dated 11.11.2007, deemed conversion to seven individuals who were working as U.D. Stenographers, to the post of Senior Assistants, was extended on their immediate completion of three years. However, they were not given seniority over and above the writ petitioners. In that view of the matter, the writ petitioners cannot and could not have any grievance, as the deemed conversion given to the seven individuals by proceedings dated 11.11.2007, do not affect the writ petitioners in any way. In that view of the matter, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the positive direction given to the appellant – Devasthanam, is impermissible and further it would absurd the entire seniority list which is under preparation consequent on the Division Bench judgment of this court in W.A.Nos.831 and 851 of 2007.

¶12

6. On the other hand the leaned counsel appearing for the respondents - writ petitioners, would submit that there is no reason and rationale in not extending the similar benefit to the writ petitioners, which has been extended to the seven individuals, by treating their cases also for the purpose of conversion to the posts of Senior Assistants on their immediate completion of three years period. He would further contend that if the same analogy is extended, the writ petitioners would be fulfilling the criteria of completion of three years of service as U.D. Stenographers and that would also satisfy the Tirumala

¶13

Tirupati Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989, in particular working in Senior Assistant Post for the purpose of promotion to the Superintendent post. He would further point out that the reversion made in the impugned order, is only on account of their not completing the three years tenure. However, he would submit that as on date, all the writ petitioners are eligible to be considered for the post of Superintendent and they ought not have been reverted.

¶14

7. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the order of the learned single Judge is modified to the following effect:

¶15

“The appellant – Devasthanam, shall consider the cases of the respondents - writ petitioners, to extend the benefit which has been given to the seven individuals by proceedings dated 11.11.2007 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

The appellant shall also consider the cases of the writ petitioners for further promotion after carrying out the exercise which has been directed to be done in the previous paragraph, for the purpose of Superintendent post.”

¶17

8. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶18

9. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand

¶19

closed.

¶20

-----------------------------------G.CHANDRAIAH,J

¶21

---------------------------------------CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶22

DATE:29-01-2014

¶23

AVS

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, v. N.M. Kodandapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, v. N.M. Kodandapani

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

Council of the Inst.of Chartered Acounts Vs G.Pattabhirama Charya

The Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D. Major Irrigation, Vs M. Hanumaiah

Dscscs Limited, Hanamkonda, Warangal District Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Deputy General Manager Ir. Cell, Syndicate Vs The Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad

Teh Commissioner of Wealth Tax a.P-I Hyd Vs Trustees of Prince Mouzam Jah Trust Hyd.

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Sb Rasheedunnisa Begum