Allowed

Boppana Satyanarayana, S/o late Sri Venkateswara Rao v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Telangana HC17 Jun 2014WP/16392/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a transfer order. Directing the Commissioner to decide the petitioner's representation on posting within four weeks, considering reports from officers, rather than adjudicating merits of reversion or promotion validity.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within four weeks considering relevant reports.

Boppana Satyanarayana, S/o late Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16392 OF 2014

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, as well as the Assistant Government Pleader for endowments-respondent No.1, apart from perusing the record.

¶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 petitioner was initially appointed on 31.03.1991 as Junior Assistant in Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Choultry, Eluru, and subsequently he was authorized to discharge the functions as Manager. When the 1^st respondent issued proceedings on 10.06.2010 reverting the petitioner as Superintendent from the post of Manager, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13654 of 2010 challenging the said reversion. Eventually, this Court through its judgment dated 27.01.2012 disposed of the said writ petition, while upholding the impugned order, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents with regard to protecting his pay or being posted at some other place, and if such a representation was made, the same had to be disposed of within a period of four (04) weeks. The petitioner has also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.2973 of 2011 challenging the 1^st respondent’s order, to implement the earlier order, dated 10.06.2010 by duly cancelling the order dated 23.10.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of

¶7

by this Court on 25.03.2011 with the following direction:

¶8

“I, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed on 27.01.2011 by the Commissioner of Endowments. However, it has come to my notice during the hearing of this Writ Petition that an attempt was made quite unsuccessfully by the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner on 28.10.2008. It is baffling to note that from October, 2008 onwards, no such enquiry has been attempted to be conducted. Therefore, the Commissioner will first of all ensure that a proper enquiry is conducted against the writ petitioner and based upon the report of that enquiry, appropriate action be initiated against him.

¶9

It is also further open to the Commissioner to explore the possibility of transferring the writ petitioner to any other institution, as far as possible, keeping clearly in view the limit imposed by the statute under the proviso to clause (i) of sub-Section (2)(a) of Section 57 of the Act”.

¶10

4. In the light of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.2973 of 2011, the petitioner, as could be seen from the record, was posted to 2^nd respondent institution, where he worked till 03.01.2014.

¶11

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he was working in the 2^nd respondent temple, once again the 1^st respondent issued proceedings transferring the petitioner back to his parent institution, i.e., Sri Kanyaka Parameshwari Choultry, Eluru. Since the petitioner is placed in the cadre of Superintendent and drawing salary of more than Rs.25,000/-, it appears that he made a representation to the 1^st respondent ventilating his grievance that his parent institution rejected his joining report stating that the institution would not accommodate his present income, especially in the face of Section 57 of Act 30 of 1987.

¶12

6. The record further reveals that in the face of the

¶13

representation made by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent is said to have called for the report from the Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-I, Kakinada, who submitted his report through letter in Rc.No.A2/1942/2013, dated 30.04.2013.

¶14

7. It appears that the Regional Joint Commissioner has recommended the petitioner to be posted at Sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple, Bhimavaram. It can be further seen that the 1^st respondent has called for the report from the Executive Officer of Sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple, as well.

¶15

8. Since the 1^st respondent has not considered the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.04.2013, despite the report submitted by the Regional Joint Commissioner and the Executive Commissioner of Sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple, Bhimavaram, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶16

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents has strenuously contested the claims and contentions of the petitioner and has stated that in the face of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, the very promotion of the petitioner as a Superintendent is unsustainable. Once the petitioner is transferred to his parent department, notwithstanding the promotions he obtained in other institutions, he should be relegated to a position he originally occupied. According to the learned Standing Counsel, at the time when the petitioner left the parent institution, he was a Junior Assistant, ipso facto on his repatriation he should occupy the same position. He has further contended that in the face of the statutory limitations imposed on

¶17

the promotion of the petitioner, Section 57 of Act 30 of 1987 would not come in the way.

¶18

10. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the matter. It is evident that the petitioner made a representation on 15.04.2013. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent has called for reports from the Regional Joint Commissioner and the Executive Officer of Sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple, Bhimavaram.

¶19

11. Accordingly, it serves the interest of justice, if the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1^st respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner duly taking into account the report submitted by the Regional Joint Commissioner and the Executive Officer of Mavullamma Ammavari Temple, Bhimavaram, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking into account the earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court.

¶20

12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

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

¶22

Date:17.06.2014 INL

¶23

_________________________________ JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

Boppana Satyanarayana, S/o late Sri Venkateswara Rao v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boppana Satyanarayana, S/o late Sri Venkateswara Rao v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolluri Narayana, Vs Prasanna Simha

Shaik Irfan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the

Murla Dhana Raju, Vs The Chief Executive Officer

K. Srinivasa Rao Vs Ap Genco, Vidhyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

M. Ravi Kumar Vs Ap Genco

U. Sreedhar babu Vs Ap Genco