Disposed

P.Lakshmi Narayana, v. Smt.K.Usha Rani

Telangana HC17 Nov 2015WP/21862/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition by Senior Assistants challenging a Tribunal order involving a former colleague's promotion claim, disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider the second petitioner for promotion alongside the first respondent.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for promotion to Superintendent alongside the 1st respondent's claim, if not already considered.

P.Lakshmi Narayana, Vs Smt.K.Usha Rani — Telangana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH &

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶3

W.P. No. 21862 of 2004

¶4

DATE: 17.11.2015

¶5

Between: P. Lakshmi Narayana and another .. Petitioners and K. Usha Rani and another .. Respondents

¶6

O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

¶7

The writ petitioners assert that they have been working as Senior Assistants in Zilla Sainik Welfare Department, Khammam District ever since they were promoted in the years 1991 and 2001 respectively, and as per Final Seniority List, their names stand at serial numbers 6 and 16 for promotion to the posts of Superintendents. While so, it is stated that the

¶8

1^st respondent herein, who is senior to the petitioners, was also working as Senior Assistant and filed O.A.No. 4236 of 2001 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal) wherein the writ petitioners are not made parties, and the Tribunal, by order dated 12.03.2004, directed the respondents therein to consider the claim of the 1^st respondent for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent along with his juniors who were given promotions on 23.05.2001 and 01.06.2001. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the 1^st respondent’s case was considered and based on her seniority she was promoted and appointed as Superintendent vide proceedings dated 04.06.1997 issued by the 2^nd respondent. However, owing to her personal difficulties, she made a representation dated

¶9

07.06.1997 indicating her inability to join the promotional post, and subsequently, claimed promotion on 24.01.2001 based on her earlier representation. Now, the grievance of the writ petitioners is that if the order of the Tribunal is implemented their service career would be adversely effected as their seniority in the existing vacancies as well as the future vacancies is likely to arise in the category of Superintendents. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

¶10

Inasmuch as the writ petitioners are not parties to the impugned proceedings before the Tribunal, they have filed W.P.M.P.No. 13171 of 2004 seeking leave to file the present writ petition, and this Court, by order dated 24.11.2004, allowed the application, and subsequently on 30.11.2004, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim suspension of the impugned order.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the 1^st petitioner is concerned he has already retired from service and he is not aware of the present status of the 2^nd petitioner and if the 2^nd petitioner is still in service his case may be considered for promotion.

¶12

The grievance of the 1^st respondent herein before the Tribunal is to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in not considering her claim for promotion as Office Superintendent along with others when promotions were

¶13

effected on 23.05.2001 and 01.06.2001, and the Tribunal made the following order:

¶14

“……..Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid reasons, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent with effect from the date from which her juniors were promoted. With this direction, the O.A. is disposed of.”

¶15

The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the 2^nd respondent has submitted that the petitioners were not made parties in O.A. and the case of the 1^st respondent for promotion is based on seniority, as such, the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider the case of the 2^nd petitioner for promotion if he is still in service when the case of the 1^st respondent is considered.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶17

It is apparent that the petitioners were not made parties to the O.A.No. 4236 of 2001 and having regard to the plea taken by the petitioners that they are eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendents by virtue of their fulfilling requisite qualifications as on the date of filing the writ petition and they stand at serial Nos.6 and 16 of the Final Seniority List of Senior Assistants and in view of the submission that the 1^st respondent, having relinquished her earlier promotion temporarily by way of expressing her personal family problems which is not a legal claim by

¶18

virtue of the statutory bar under Rule 11(b) read with Rule 28 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, claimed to consider her promotion on 24.01.2001 based on her earlier representation dated 07.06.1997 and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶19

“The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the 2^nd petitioner if not already considered in the event of considering the case of the 1^st respondent for promotion to the post of Superintendent, in accordance with law.”

¶20

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

_________________

¶23

G. CHANDRAIAH, J 17.11.2015

¶24

______________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶25

bcj

P.Lakshmi Narayana, v. Smt.K.Usha Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Lakshmi Narayana, v. Smt.K.Usha Rani

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

The Secrtary to Government, Municipal Administrtion and Vs Sri M.P. Janardhana Rao Town Planning and Building Overseer

The Director of Town and country Planning, a.P., Vs Sri P.N.S.Sai Babu

B. Venkateswarlu, Vs The Prl., Secretarya to Govt., Health Medical and-

Syed Ali Vs M.Raja Ram

V. Johnsundaram, Vs The Municipal Commissioner

N.Ravinder Rao, Vs The A.P.P.S.C.