Allowed

Yalaka Srinivas Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Nov 2019WP/7498/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that an administrative delay in issuing posting orders to a transferred employee constitutes a compulsory wait under FR 9(13). Consequently, the period of delay is treated as duty service, entitling the petitioner to salary and all service benefits.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 18.04.2019; direct payment of salary for the period 01.06.2018 to 12.08.2018; treat period as compulsory wait with all benefits.

Yalaka Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO.7498 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the period of 73 days from 01.06.2018 to 12.08.2018 as duty period and not paying salary and other allowances for the said period, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to consider the said period of 73 days as duty period and pay salary and other allowances for the said period and also to count the service for the purpose of seniority and other benefits.

¶4

Heard Ms. K.Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Government Pleader for Services-II.

¶5

It has been contended by the petitioner that he was working as MPDO in Krishna District and after bifurcation of the State by virtue of A.P. Re-organisation Act, he was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh. After being allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner had submitted an application for mutual transfer with one Sri G.Sudhakar, who was working as MPDO in Ranga Reddy District, and vide G.O.Rt.No.311 dated 12.04.2018, the petitioner has been transferred from the State of Andhra Pradesh to the State of Telangana. It is stated that in pursuance of the said G.O., the petitioner has reported before the 1^st respondent on 01.06.2018 and the counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner has reported

¶6

AKS,J W.P.No.7498_2019

¶7

¶8

before the 1^st respondent in pursuance of the said G.O., the respondents have not given any posting orders for two months and finally posting orders were given to the petitioner on 10.08.2018 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner had joined duty on 13.08.2018.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that the period from 01.06.2018, the day on which he has reported before the 1^st respondent, till he had joined duty pursuant to posting orders dated 10.08.2018, is not being considered for payment of salary, other service benefits and also for the purpose of seniority.

¶10

Therefore, counsel for the petitioner contended that since there is administrative lapse on the part of the respondents in not giving the posting orders to the petitioner for two months, the period from 01.06.2018 to 12.08.2018 should be treated as compulsory wait in terms of FR 9 (13) and all the benefits be extended to the petitioner.

¶11

Government Pleader for the respondents had contended that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted about the administrative lapse in giving posting orders to the petitioner. He also contended that since the petitioner was transferred to the State of Telangana on his own request, the period from 01.06.2018 to 12.08.2018 cannot be counted as spent on duty. Government Pleader further contended that when the petitioner has submitted an application, his case was considered and rejected vide orders dated 18.04.2019, therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

AKS,J W.P.No.7498_2019

¶13

¶14

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that when the petitioner has reported before the 1^st respondent on 01.06.2018 in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.311 dated 12.04.2018, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, but there is administrative delay on the part of the respondents in giving posting orders. Even in the counter affidavit, the respondents have clearly admitted about the administrative lapse in giving posting orders to the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 18.04.2019 rejecting the case of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is entitled for payment of salary for the period from 01.06.2018 to 12.08.2018 and the said period shall be treated as compulsory wait for all purposes and all the benefits shall be extended to the petitioner.

¶15

With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶16

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶18

19^th November, 2019 v v

¶19

AKS,J W.P.No.7498_2019

¶20

Yalaka Srinivas Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yalaka Srinivas Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Katakam Laxma Vs The State of Telangana

K. Venkata Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

D. Narasimha, Vs The District Medical and Health Officer

Amanganti Mallamma , Susheela Vs The Union of India

Jilla Pandu Vs The State of Telangana

M. Radha Krishna Kumari Vs The State of Telangana