Allowed

P.v.Sesha Sai v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Aug 2017WP/26008/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking promotion for a Deputy Executive Engineer. It set aside the Tribunal's order dismissing the promotion claim due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, directing the government to consider the petitioner for promotion despite the pending charges.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

P.v.Sesha Sai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.26008 of 2017

¶4

Date:04.8.2017

¶5

Between : P.V.Sesha Sai, S/o Late P.C.Venkata Ramana ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. S.Gopal Rao Counsel for the respondents: GP for Services-I (AP)

¶6

The Court made the following:

¶7

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.26008 of 2017 Dated:04.8.2017

¶8

¶9

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶10

This is yet another case of an employee being overlooked

¶11

for promotion, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary

¶12

proceedings and the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) ignoring the well-reasoned

¶13

orders of this Court.

¶14

The petitioner who was working as Deputy Executive Engineer in Kurnool Municipal Corporation was subjected to

¶15

disciplinary proceedings, in which, a charge memo was served

¶16

on him as far back as the year 2011. It is his pleaded case that so

¶17

far, no enquiry officer has been appointed, let alone,

¶18

commencement of enquiry. This plea is not denied by the

¶19

learned Government Pleader for Services-I (Andhra Pradesh)

¶20

appearing for the respondents.

¶21

In a series of orders, this Court has pointed out that it is

¶22

not fair on the part of the Government to ignore the claims of

¶23

eligible employees for promotion merely on the ground of

¶24

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.26008 of 2017 Dated:04.8.2017

¶25

¶26

pendency of disciplinary proceedings, while keeping the said

¶27

proceedings pending for unduly long periods.

¶28

One of the leading orders in this regard on this aspect is

¶29

dated 18.3.2016, in Writ Petition No.8690 of 2016 ( K.Hari Das

¶30

Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ). This order is being followed

¶31

consistently by various Benches of this Court. In spite of these

¶32

orders, the Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A. filed by the

¶33

petitioner for consideration of his claim for promotion.

¶34

Mr. S.Gopal Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶35

submitted that according to his information, the Departmental

¶36

Promotion Committee, which was already constituted, has

¶37

deferred the petitioner’s case on the ground of pendency of the

¶38

disciplinary proceedings against him.

¶39

For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is

¶40

allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The

¶41

respondents are directed to forthwith consider the case of the

¶42

petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer

¶43

notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶44

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.26008 of 2017 Dated:04.8.2017

¶45

¶46

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,

¶47

WPMP.No.32250 of 2017 filed by the petitioner for interim

¶48

relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶49

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶50

JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD

¶51

04^th August 2017 DR

P.v.Sesha Sai v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Sesha Sai v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karapati Eswara Rao, Vs The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police

Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Vs a. S. Priya

P. Ravi, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Vs The Director General and Inspector General of Police

Union of India Vs Parna Muniratnam Chetty

Smt. G. Lilly, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Narasimha Raju, Vs Yarabala Raju