Disposed

P.v.Subba Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Jun 2014WP/16107/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding service ranks and promotions, the High Court disposed of the matter at the admission stage. The court directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioners' representation concerning the inequity of working under former juniors promoted to a higher position and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fourth respondent to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.05.2014 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

P.v.Subba Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16107 OF 2012

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶5

2. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass, this writ petition is disposed of at the very admission stage.

¶6

3. Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the petitioners and the unofficial respondents 7 to 11 secured their employment as Assistant Engineers in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board in the year, 1992. At the time of their initial appointment in the hierarchy, respondents 7 to 11 were said to be juniors to the petitioners. In course of time, as a matter of administrative policy, the then unified State of Andhra Pradesh took a decision to unbundle the APSEB into six component companies. At that juncture, the petitioners opted to be in the service of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), whereas respondents 7 to 11 opted to be in Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL).

¶7

4. Since these two Companies are independent entities, they had their own distinct promotion policies. Ostensibly owing to the expansion of APCPDCL, respondents 7 to 11 had accelerated promotions and accordingly stole a march over the petitioners in rank. In other words, on promotion, presently the respondents 7 to

¶8

11 are working as Divisional Engineers. The petitioners, however, are Assistant Divisional Engineers.

¶9

5. Now with the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh through Acts 6 of 14, as a matter of policy, certain employees, geographically belonging to the residual State of Andhra Pradesh, working in the new State of Telangana, were repatriated to the cadre of the residual State of Andhra Pradesh. In that process, even respondents 7 to 11 have also been allotted to APSPDCL in their cadre as Divisional Engineers.

¶10

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that though initially at the time of entering into the service in their erstwhile APSEB, respondents 7 to 11 were juniors to the petitioners, but later in view of the subsequent developments, which have been referred to above, now the said respondents are in a higher cadre. As such, in the light of those respondents getting posted to APSPDCL, the petitioners would be compelled to work under their own juniors occupying the superior rank. Terming this as an inequitable arrangement, the petitioners seem to have made representations to the authorities concerned, including to the 4^th respondent, to redress their grievance against this apparent inequity. Having not received any response from the authorities concerned, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶11

7. Without expressing anything on merits, this Court deems it desirable to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶12

The respondentNo.4 shall consider the representation, dated 01.05.2014, said to have been submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

¶13

of this order.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________________ JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶17

Date:12.06.2014 INL

P.v.Subba Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Subba Rao, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

M. Mahabub Basha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

R.B.Naik, E-427158, Apsrtc Driver S/o.Gopal Naik Vs The Apsrtc rep by its Vice Chairman and

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Rajampet. Vs D.R. Mohan, S/o Subbaiah, Aged 43 years, Conductor

Malluru Subhadra, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

B. Balraj s Vs The Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (B.H.E.L.)

P. Swapna Vs The Bharat Heavy Electronics Limited (B.H.E.L.)