Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri S.H.R.Naqui, Asst.Research Officer (Retired)

Telangana HC12 Mar 2014WP/7210/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's order granting notional promotion to a retired petitioner. The Court held that under the relevant Service Rules, the petitioner's probation was deemed completed with retrospective effect as no declaration was issued in time, entitling him to monetary benefits for three years prior to retirement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted notional promotion effective from 24.01.1997 with monetary benefits limited to three years prior to retirement.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 7210 OF 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.04.2003 in Original Application No.712 of 1997 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶6

2. The petitioners herein are respondents, and the respondent herein is the applicant, before the Tribunal. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. The brief facts are as follows:

¶8

The applicant joined service in the year 1965 as Observer. His services were regularized in the year 1977. He was promoted as Assistant Research Officer in the year 1981. When his case came up for consideration for promotion to the next higher category, he was denied it on the ground that his services were not regularized in the category of Assistant Research Officer. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal disposed of the same directing the respondents to give notional benefits.

¶9

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that till 12.08.1991, regularization of services for the category of Assistant Research Officer was under the purview of the Public Service Commission and thereafter by virtue of amendment, the Government is the competent authority to regularize the services; that when

¶10

the Departmental Promotion Committee met in the year 1990, case of the applicant was rejected on the ground that his services were not regularized, and therefore, he is not entitled to promotion.

¶11

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent herein/applicant contended that the ground on which promotion was denied to the applicant is not available to the Departmental Promotion Committee; that the applicant was in a continuous period of probation in the category of Assistant Research Officer and no order as contemplated under Rule 18 (b) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 was passed; that the probation is deemed to have completed satisfactorily under Rule 18 (b) (ii) of the Rules when the competent authority failed to pass necessary orders declaring his probation for 10 long years, and considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order, and therefore, she prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶12

6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The applicant was promoted as Assistant Research Officer on 03.07.1981 and joined as such on 13.08.1981. When vacancies arose in the next higher category, meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 20.02.1990 whereunder the case of the applicant came up for consideration for promotion to the post of Research Officer. The Committee rejected the case of the applicant as his services in the category of Assistant Research Officer were not regularized.

¶13

7. Rule 18 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1996’) deals with ‘Declaration of probation’. Under Rule 18 (a) of the Rules, 1996, at the end of the prescribed or extended period of probation, as the case may be, the

¶14

appointing authority shall consider whether the probationer should be considered to have satisfactorily completed his period of probation, and after taking a decision in this regard, he shall issue an order declaring that the probationer has satisfactorily completed the period of probation. Under Rule 18 (b) (i) of the Rules, 1996, decision whether a probationer could be considered to have satisfactorily completed his probation or his probation should be extended or discharged or suspended shall be taken within a period of 8 weeks after expiry of the prescribed period of probation. Under Rule 18 (b) (ii), if no order as referred to, in sub-rule (a) is issued within one year from the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation, the probationer shall be deemed to have completed satisfactorily his probation with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of probation and a formal order to that effect may be issued for the purpose of record.

¶15

8. In the case on hand, no orders either extending or declaring the probation of the applicant in the category of Assistant Research Officer has been issued by the competent authority within a period of 8 weeks after expiry of the prescribed period of probation. Therefore, in the absence of any such order, the applicant is deemed to have completed satisfactorily his probation with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the prescribed period of probation, as per Rule 18 (b) (ii) of the Rules, 1996. Therefore, the case of the applicant ought to have been considered in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee in February, 1990. Though the applicant is otherwise eligible, he was denied the promotion on the sole ground that his services in the category of Assistant Research Officer were not regularized. Therefore, in view of the above provision,

¶16

the applicant is entitled to promotion with effect from 24.01.1997. In view of the fact that the applicant retired from service on superannuation, his promotion has to be given notionally and monetary benefits shall be limited only for the period of 3 years prior to the date of his retirement.

¶17

9. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

-----------------------(K.C. BHANU, J.)

¶19

( ANIS, J.)

¶20

12.03.2014 DRK

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS

¶22

WRIT PETITION No. 7210 OF 2004 (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶23

12.03.2014

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri S.H.R.Naqui, Asst.Research Officer (Retired)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri S.H.R.Naqui, Asst.Research Officer (Retired)

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

Tabeti Devasahayam, Vs The District Collector

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Sri K. Rajanna, Gr.I Warden

P. Ramanaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.Chandra Mohan Rao Vs Dist Collector Rr Dist and 2 Ors.

D. Bhaskar Kumar, S/o. Joseph Vs Y. Narayana Rao, S/o. Y. Venugopal

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vs Smt.Burra Jayasri