Allowed

V.Swarajya Lakshmi v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Mar 2017WP/735/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to fix the petitioner's pay scale under Regulation 30(A) of the AP State Electricity Board Service Regulations, noting that the legal issue was already squarely decided in coordinate benches.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to fix pay scale under Regulation 30(A) Part-I within six weeks considering medical leave period.

V.Swarajya Lakshmi Vs The Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.735 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of Regulation 30 (A) Part-I of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations, to the petitioner.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner and of Sri M.Ravindra, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL representing the respondents. I have perused the material record.

¶6

3. The case of the petitioner, as per the pleadings and submissions made before this Court, is that though she was holding the post of Junior Personnel Officer, she was posted as Incharge Personnel Officer of Pension Section and that she discharged the duties as Personnel Officer and attended to the additional duties and responsibilities of the post of higher pay and is, therefore, entitled to higher pay in terms of Regulation 30 (A) referred to supra.

¶7

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that similar issues were considered by this Court in W.P.No.1085 of 2006 vide orders, dated 28.03.2006, and W.P.No.12568 of 2006 vide orders, dated 23.06.2006, and that therefore, the issue is squarely covered and hence, the case of the petitioner herein deserves similar consideration by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner also

¶8

MSRM, J WP No.735 of 2008

¶9

¶10

brings to the notice of this Court that a Division Bench of this Court, by orders, dated 06.09.2010, passed in W.A.No.683 of 2010, confirmed the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.12568 of 2006, and that another Division Bench also refused to interfere with the orders of the learned single Judge vide orders, dated 27.04.2011, passed in W.A.No.320 of 2010, after having taken note of the finality attained in respect of the orders, dated 28.03.2006, passed in W.P.No.1085 of 2006 and the further fact that the Co-ordinate Bench has declined to interfere with the judgment impugned in W.A.No.683 of 2010.

¶11

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, while bringing to the notice of this Court the contentions in the counter affidavit of the official respondents, would submit that the pay scale of Junior Personnel Officer is a lower pay scale than that of the pay scale of Personnel Officer and that the petitioner herein proceeded on medical leave during the period between 24.04.2006 to 18.08.2007 and that having joined duty on 19.08.2007, she retired from service on attaining superannuation and that, therefore, the said aspect needs consideration while extending the benefits of Regulation 30 (A) Part-I of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations, Part-I, to the petitioner.

¶12

6. Having regard to the submissions and the fact that the answer to the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra since squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in the earlier writ petitions and writ appeals referred to supra, this Court, following the

¶13

MSRM, J WP No.735 of 2008

¶14

¶15

same, deems it apposite to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.

¶16

7. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner in terms of Regulation 30 (A) Part-I of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations, Part-I, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and take further steps in accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after taking into consideration the period of medical leave availed by the petitioner.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall

¶19

stand closed.

¶20

_________________ M.Seetharama Murti, J 08^th March, 2017 Bvv

V.Swarajya Lakshmi v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Swarajya Lakshmi v. The Chairman and Managing Director, 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

Kamal Singh , Kawal Singh Vs The State of Telangana

P.Kishore Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Director General ( Personnel)

P. Gopi Vs The Depot Manager

Pathan Feroz Khan, Vs Mohammad Mirza Najma

Sri S.Sudhakar, Vs Apsrtc, Rep by Vice Chairman and Managing Director