Dismissed

B. Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC2 Feb 2022WP/5601/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a SP, sought a writ directing promotion to DSP with monetary benefits. The Court observed that notional promotion and seniority were already granted without monetary benefits by lower forums. Dismissing the petition, the Court held no prima facie case existed for interfering further regarding monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without costs. No order as to costs.

B. Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIGE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5601 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

B. Ram Reddy, Aged about 54 years, S/o.Dhuma Nayak, Superintendent of Police (NC), Regional Officer, ClD, Karimnagar-505001

¶8

,,,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, AP Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur.

¶12

The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶13

The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur Dist, AP

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of ITiIANDAMUS there by

¶16

i) declare the inaction of the Respondents in not giving the effect to the proceedings of the review DPC dated. 28-08-2010 in^granting the^promotion to the^petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendant of Police against the vacancy yeat 2010-11 as held by the then Director General of Police in his order dated. 20-02-2013 is capricious, unreasonable and manifestly arbitrary as such violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶17

ii) direct the Respondents to give effect to the proceedings of the review DPC dated. 28-08-2010 fully by operating the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as held by the then Director General of Police in his order daled. 20-02-2013 against the panel year 2010-1 1.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.KOTESWARA RAO

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR HOME (TS)

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 4: SRI P.GOVINDA REDDY,

¶21

Spl.Counsel for AP

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

lt V

¶24

THE IIO^{N'BLE THECHIEFJUSTICESATISHCHAND RA SIIARMA} AND

¶25

HON'BLE CE AND KUMAR SIIAVILI

¶26

WRIT PETI^{TION NO. 560l of 2022}

¶27

ORDER: fper^{trrenon'blethechief tusticesatish ChandraStanna)}

¶28

The present writ^{petltion has been filed by the petitioner'} who is working on^{the post of Superintendent of Police'statingthat} he is entitled^{for promotionwith retrospective effect on the post of} Deputy superintendent^{of Police.}

¶29

The undisputed^{facts of the casereveal that the petitioner} was facing a^{departmentalenquiry and he was not considered for} promotion to the^{post of Deputy Superintendentof Police for the} panel year 2OO9-2O7O^{and ir-r those circumstances'an Original} Application i.e.,^{O.A.No.3033 of 20 10 was preferredby him} claiming promotion.^{The Original Application was disposed of by} the Andhra Pradesh^{AdministraliveTribunalon 13'05'2010and} paragraph 15 of the^{order is reproducedas under:-}

¶30

"15.^{In uiew of the aboue} facts^{and circumstances of the case' as} the disciptinary^{proceedings are at the stageof passingfinal orders} this O.A., itself ts^{beingdisposedof bg directing the respondents} i.e., disciplinary^{authoitAto pc.ss} fnal^{orderspursuant to Charge} Memo d.oted 2.12.2006,^{n-tithin a peiod of threemonths' if no} ord.ers are^{passedwithin the prescibed time, the respondentsare} directed to consider^{the caseof the applicant for promotionto the} post of DeputA Supeintendent^{of Police(Ciuil)'if he is othenise fit'} eligible and comes^{withinthe zoneof cottsiderationin accordance} with his senioitA^{in the eisting uacancg' LUltLLout rekrence to the} Charge Memo^{dated2.12.2006 ond} further,^{it {s olwoAs open for} the respondents^{to imposepunishment in the promoted postaLso'} No order as to^cosfs. '

¶31

The respondents therein^{were directedto complete} the departmental enquiry^{within aperiod of threemonths} and thereafter, to consider^{the case of the petitioner for promotion'} The

¶32

judgment of the Tribunal was delivered on 13.05.2010 ancl the State of Andhra Pradesh, being aggrieved by the order ol the Tribunal, preferred W.P.No.30953 of 2010. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the disciplinary proceedings have been dropped, the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the panel year 2OLO-2O1 1 and was promoted, vide proceedings dated 20.02.2013. The judgment in W.P.No.30953 of 2010 was delivered on 23.04.201g. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was granted promotion with retrospective effect by an order dated 2O.O2.20 13. The petitioner did not assail the order passed by the Division Bench of the unified High Court lor the States ofTelangana and Andhra pradesh belore any Forum. The documents on record further reveai that the petitioner has been granted seniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 01.09.2008, though his prayer was for granting him promotion with effect from 2010.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the petitioner has been granted notional promotion only and not the monetary benefits.

¶34

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Tribunal has not granted monetary benefits to the petitioner while deciding the O.A, and the Division Bench of the unified High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh has also not granted monetary benefits, the question of granting monetary benefits to the petitioner at this juncture does not arise. No case for interference is made out in the matter.

¶35

The writ petition stands dismissed

C I

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶40

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SD/. P,PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR V,,.-

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

One CC to SRI^{T.KOTESWARA RAO, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶46

Two CCs to the GP^{for Home(TS),HighCourt for the State of Telangana} touTl

¶47

One CC to^{SRIP.GOVINDA REDDY, Special Counselfor AP [OPUC]}

¶48

Two C.D. CoPies.

¶49

One Spare^CoPY. k

IVRC

HIGH COURT

DAf ED:,0210212022

ORDER

WP.No.5601^{ot 2022}

1 e S TArA
,}
oo 21 rEB 2022
I
JZ
a
+j
-
;)

¶57

DISMISSING^{THEWRITPETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

B. Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Ram Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Suo Moto Vs Union of India

M/s Y Koteswar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

B.S. Enterprises Vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

The Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences Vs Dr. Devender Banavath

B.S. Enterprises and 2 others Vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 Others

National Investigation Agency Vs Manik Shaik