Dismissed

The Commissioner, v. Jampana Satyanarayana Raju

Telangana HC26 Sept 2014WP/30496/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed consolidated writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order promoting non-regularized municipal employees as Health Assistants. Relying on a prior final Tribunal order deeming the appointments regular, the Court held that the petitioner could not deny promotion rights despite lack of subsequent ratification.

What did the court decide?

Both Writ Petitions dismissed at the stage of admission; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Commissioner, Vs Jampana Satyanarayana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.29478 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION No.30496 OF 2014

¶4

COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

These two Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 01.08.2013, in Original Application Nos.3151 and 3152 of 2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same.

¶6

2. Unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions filed the aforesaid Original Applications to declare the action of the official respondents and the petitioner herein in not considering their case for promotion to the post of Health Assistant in the existing vacancies by treating their regular appointments, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to promote them as Health Assistants, strictly as per their seniority, as was done in respect of similarly placed persons, by regularizing their services from the date of their initial appointments.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed both the Original Applications directing official respondents and petitioner herein to promote the unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions to the post of Health Assistant in the existing vacancies, by treating their appointments as regular appointments right from 16.03.1987, subject to their seniority and appropriate orders in this regard were directed to be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed the present Writ Petitions.

¶8

4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in these two Writ Petitions as well as in the Original Applications is that as the services of unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions have not been regularized, they are not entitled to promotion to the next higher post and therefore, he prays to admit both the Writ Petitions.

¶9

5. Facts are not in dispute. The unofficial respondents in both the Writ Petitions are working as Record Assistants in Bhimavaram Municipality. For not considering their case for promotion to the post of Health Assistant in the existing vacancies, Original Applications were filed and the same were allowed.

¶10

6. It is not in dispute before this Court that by proceedings Rc.No.4216/89/C1, dated 13.09.1989, petitioner herein abruptly stopped the pay and allowance to the unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions along with others, who were appointed without permission of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration. Aggrieved by the said action of the petitioner, the unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions and others filed Representation Petition Nos.28734 to 28738 and 29532 of 1989 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record vide order, dated 23.10.1992, allowed the Representation Petitions by setting aside the proceedings, dated 13.09.1989. Operative portion of the order reads as follows:

¶11

“It is evident that the selection process was under gone, and the petitioners were appointed against the posts notified. It can be seen from the impugned proceedings that the said orders were issued in pursuance of the orders of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has not filed any counter to says as to why the said proceedings are issued. If at all there is any difficulty or approval of the

¶12

higher authority is necessary, then such a stand ought to have been taken at the earlier point of time and not after 2 or 3 years of appointments of petitioners.”

¶13

7. That finding has become final. In view of the said finding, the petitioner cannot turn around and say that as the services of the unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions were not regularized, they are not entitled to promotion. It is not in dispute that the unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions underwent a selection process and in pursuance of panel prepared by the Selection Committee they were appointed. It is also not in dispute that the unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions is deemed to have completed their probation. Even after completion of twenty five years of service, petitioner has not taken any steps to get ratification from the Government. When the finding of the Tribunal in the order, dated 23.10.1992, is staring at the petitioner, it cannot turn around and say that the unofficial respondent in both the Writ Petitions are not entitled to promotion as their services were not regularized. Therefore, the Tribunal after considering all these aspects, rightly allowed both the Original Applications and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶14

8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these two Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶15

_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶16

_________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶17

SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 YVL

The Commissioner, v. Jampana Satyanarayana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner, v. Jampana Satyanarayana Raju

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

K.v.v.Satyanarayana, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gogineni Subba Rao, Vs Gogineni Anjaneyulu

The Director, Vs L. Sree Ramulu

Smt.S.Lakshmidevi, Vs Sapthagiri Grameena Bank

Mallarapu Soma Sekhar, Vs State Bank of India

Rajasekhar Buggaveeti, Vs Hdfc Bank Limited