Partly allowed

The Chief General Manager and 3 others v. Mekala Venkata Ramana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2023WA/739/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging the termination of an employee for submitting a fake ITI certificate. The Court allowed part of the appeal, directing the employer to reconsider the employee's regularization as Artisan Grade-III based on genuine SSC qualification.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal disposed of directing appellants to consider respondent's case for regularization as Artisan Grade-III.

The Chief General Manager and 3 others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3368I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND TtIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

wRlT APPEAL NO: 739 OF 2022

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 2210712022 in W.P.No.31154 of 2021 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶8

The Chief General Manager, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Metropolitan Zone, Mint Compound, Hyderabad

¶9

The Superintending Engineer, Southern Power Distributiorl Company of Telangana Limited, Mint Compound, Greater Hyderabad.

¶10

The Divisional Engineer (Elec.), Operation Charminar-C-lll, TSSPDCL, Salarjung Sub-Station, Greater Hyderabad

¶11

The Southem Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶12

...Appellants

¶13

AND

¶14

Mekala Venkata Ramana, S/o. M.Pedda Ramanna, Aged about 49 years, Artisan Grade-ll (l.D No 51097980 Under termination of serviCe 0/o the Assistant Divisional Engineer/CBD Charminar Hyderabad R/o. Plot No. 32, Tanaji Nagar, Uppuguda Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the Writ Appellant to file (i) the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool (ii) copy of the Appeal dated 13-9-202'l of the Writ Petitioner against the order of terminalion dated 1-9-2021; (iii) lTl certificate produced by the Writ Petitioner at the time of appointment in^pursuance of the absorption order;^(iv) undertaking^given by the Writ Petitioner;^(v) SPOO^(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.429, dated 29-7 -2017 guidelines for absorption of outsourcing^personnel.

¶18

il2il

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Petitior, urrdr^- lection 151 CpC praying that in the circ;r rmstancos stated in the affidavit fr ed irr ;r pport of the petition, the High Courl rn a1, be pleased to stay the orders passerJ i I \V.p.No.31 154 of 2021 , Dated 2Zt)7 t20,)2 lA NO: 1 OF 20 23

¶21

Between:

¶22

Mekala Venka'a Rar rana. S/o. .M.pedda Ramanna, Agecr abou .lg y lars, Artisan Grade-ll (LDNo 51C:17980 under terri"rtio" "lr"'ricttyo tl-e Assis;tant Divisional Hyderabad.Ensineer/CBD Chan,rinar Hyderabad nyo iioitro. jz, ri,*i r." r"i, U;;sffi '

¶23

AND

¶24

... Pet tirtne rs/Respondent

¶25

1 The Chief G rr eral . Manager, Southern power Distr brrtior Company of

¶26

Telangana l-ir 'ilr:d, ,"_,ropo,',an Zone, Mint Comp,)und r,,OeraOaO '

¶27

1. The Superint :n Jing .. Engineer, Southern power Disiributior^-Company of Telangana Lir ritcd, Mint Compound, Greater Hyderaba,j. The Divisioni Salarjung S ub 5 alton, Ureater L ^!.1g1":j^(E199 Hvderabad^{), operation- Charmirra -C,il1, TSSpDCL,}

¶28

1. The Southern r)rrwer Distrjbution'Company of Telirnganrr imrted, Rep. by its Managing Dirr ,;t,rr, Corporate Office, Mint bompounO" H1 ..f ,;;;i;;. ''"'

¶29

...Resporrde nts/Appellants

¶30

Petition r.rnder S,-'ction i s1 cpc praying that in ttre circ,rstilnces stated in the affidavit filed in r;r- pport of the petition, the High 3ourt nray be preased to vacate the interim ,rn er dt. 9/1 112022 in W.A.No.739 of 11022

¶31

counsel for the App :'ilants: SRr G. vroyA SAGAR, sENroR (:ouirsEl FoR

¶32

SMT. K. UDAYA SRI

¶33

Counsel forthe Sote Respondent: SRI S. GOPAL RAO

¶34

The Court delivered he following: JUDGMENT

¶35

,,//

¶36

HON'BLE TIIE ACTING CHIEE'JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKI'MAR SIIAVILI} AND TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RA"IESHCIARRAO}

¶37

WRIT APPEAL No.739 OF 2022

¶38

JUDGMENT: Per Hon'ble The A Chie Justice

¶39

This Writ Appeal is frled aggrieved by^{the orderdated 22.07.2022} passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31154^{of 2O2l-}

¶40

Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned^{Senior Counsel appearing for Srnt} K. Udaya Sri, Iearned counsel for^{the appeilantsand Sri S.GopalRao,} learned counsel for the respondent.

¶41

karned counsel for the appellants^{contendedthat the respondent} was initially appointed as Field L'Ian^{with the appellantstn rlrc year2OO2} and tlre^. appellants have a.lso issued^{proceedings on 37.08.2017} appointing the respondent as Field^{Manon contractbasis. Later, vide} proceedings d.ated' 79.72.2019, the app-ellants^{have absorbed the} respondent as Artisan Grade-II in the^{timescale pay with usual} allowances, believing that the respondent^{is having ITI qualifrcation.} t ater during ttre course of enquiry, it^{has come to the noticeof tl-e} appellants that the respondent has^{submitted a fake ITI certihcate. After} conducting enquiry with regard to^{the genuineness of the said certificate} and after knowing that tl.e certilicate of^{ITI possessed by the respondent} is not gemrine, the appellants^have terminated^{the services of} respondent vide^proccedings dated^{O1.Og.2O2l and thereafter,thc} respondent has^{prefer:'edappeal} and^{the appellate authorif.r has also}

¶42

\ \

¶43

' _!t

¶44

r,\c,- & n ilrl,l '. 'i'.\73')I)li

¶45

¶46

rcjected his^case ',i,ie proceedings dateci 05. i 1.202¹ .^{Aggrir:verl b1' the} said terrnin^atior: o^-der and rejectiorr^of appeat,^{t.re r'' :} Pr;ndent^{I tas} approached^{t1 is} burt by hling W.P.No^{31154 of 2021 ani thele:rrtred} tlLis Court. was^pleased to^{set asidt ll errder} 'rf Single Jud13e^cl' termination^alC lj.recled the appellants^{to reinstntethe rc i[)cr]'[cntr tlto} rp'eciating the fact that^{the respon<tcntle rs prt'duced a} ser,,ice "lithou^{I zr} fake ITI certifioal :r. Learned counsel^{for the appeli'rrtsI a'' cc'ntended} that when it^has r)ome to the notice of^the appellantri^{tllat tlre c:rtifir:trte} submitted^{by the} rr spondent is happened^{to be a fa!:e ITI} ')e[tif1trate^i.lnd on that^grlur:.d, t^-re appellants^{have terminated thescr'ice's of the} fzict was not^{properly appreciated t'y thr: Le:rmr:d Sirlgle} respondent^This 'anicaliy allowed the said writ^petitior ' Therefore, Judge and^rne<: appropriate^orde s be passed in^{this WritAppeal1lyset 'ir g zLsideLhe} order passed^bY lrr learned.^{SrngleJudgein W.P.No.1i I 154ot 2021 dated} 22.07 .2022. arld^t tlow this writ^aPPeaJ.

¶47

4 . Learned^r: :,u nsel for the^{appellantshasalso contenr: ed that the} issue whether^ar employee can^{be terminated,if rt comet:} 'he^noticeof the employer^thE I the employee has^{gainfullygot employec l:y producing} a fake certiftc:rte the question of conducting^{regularenrlLi;y u'ould not} arise and this^is :iue was dealt^{by thrs Court in CottonC orpo::ationof} India Ltd.. and rrrrother Vs Vigrresh^{Sr and the D:visiontlen<:hof this} Court in W.A.NI )4o of 2077 and Batch^{also, relied on theudgment} rendered t,y th€ I-.on'bie Supreme^{Court and the lrtierp: ssed by the}

¶48

r (civil Apperl No ( ltis of 2021 dated 22 \1.20211

¶49

¶50

HAC,I & RRN,,, wA 739 2022

¶51

¶52

I I

¶53

learned Single Judge was set aside and accordingly, the Writ Appeal was allowed by order dated 21.O3.2O22.

¶54

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has contended t1at respondent was working as Field Man since 2OO2 and he is hawing SSC qualification and a person with SSC qua-liflcation c.rn also be taken as Artisan Grade-III, and tJ:e respondent has submitted representation to consider his case for regularization of his service as Artisan, Grade-III by duly taking into consideration his SSC qualihcatron, but that factor was not considered by the appellants and they have straight away terminated the services of the respondent. Therefo.re, the learned Single Judge was jusrifred in allowing the Writ Petition in favour of the respondent. Therefore, there are no merits and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed,

¶55

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for bottr the parties is of the considered opinion that when it comes to the notice of appellants that the services of ttre respondent were regularized based upon the ITI Certificate, whiclr certifrcate was not found to be genuine, the question of setting aside tJle termination order would not arise and t.l:e learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the termination orders. However, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for regularization of his services as Artisan Grade-III, as admittedly, ttre respondent is having requisite qualification to hold the post of Artisan Grade-lll.

¶56

¶57

¶58

itAa,l^{& Rfli.,l} J A 719 2lt12

¶59

¶60

/. Inerel )Ie^lr Lis iourt is of the^{oorlsideiedviervthat cr 11r; of jus'r-ir:c} rt'ould mcet. if^{t -rt:} !\ rit AppeaL is disposed^{of directinli the :rl: rcllants to} consider thc^caric ,ri the responclcnt for^{regularizatiol] of his servicetrs} ALisan Gracle^{I il.} .r:, admittcrlly,^{thc respondent na'" o'11;l:r'rluitlttrtr'} 102 :Lnd he rs having^{requisite o.ua1i hcatlo:i -oL old ttre} appellants^{slllcc .:} arle-lll. Therefore,^{the orderpass'edtly trelearnrrl} post of Artlsan^Ci r:t aside. Hou'ever,^{the appeliantsshall} '::r:'nsider^the Single Judgr',^{isr s} case of^t1-reresPor rknt for regularization^{of his serviceas Frl san Gradc} lll ets he is^havin€; leluired qualification^{to hold the pcst oi l r.iszur Gr:dc} III and raorcovtr-, ti r rcspont.lent^{is wurking urth * e a1'1tl atrrs srtttc} 2002 whrch^n'crrl': rr ean that^{he wasworkTrg fot rrtore &ral [v'cd:caclt:s'}

¶61

8 With thc tt^{: o re observaLions,the Writ Appr:al is dis p'rserl of} No costs

¶62

As a scc ut , rniscellaleous^{applications,pentling iI any, in this}

¶63

Wit Appeal, shall^{stand closed}

¶64

SD/,. M. MANJULA DI:PUTY REGISIRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SI:C'IlON OFFTCER

To,

The Chief Gr rn,:ral _ Manag_er, Southem Power Distrirutior Company of Telangana L in it€d, Metropolitan Zone, Mint Compcund, llyrlerabad 2. The Superintr 1(ling - Engineer, Southern Power Distri:irtiorr Company of Telangana Lin ted, Mint Compound, Greater Hyderabad.

¶69

J. The Divisione Engineer (Elec.), Operation Charminar-C-lll, TSSpDCL, Salarjun6r Sub. :ltation, Greater Hyderabad 4. The I,4anaging Drrector, Southern Power Diskibutirtn Co n:ran,/ of Telangana Limited, 0oroo ale Office, Mint Compound, Hyderahad. 5. One CC to Sm k. Udaya Sri, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC ro S,ri :i. Gopal Rao, Advocate TOPUCI 7. Two CD^rlotre

"'.-A.=-

HIGH COURT

DATED:181071','-023

JUDGMENT

W.A.No.739^{ol' ,2022}

¶75

i lzt
4 :)t ' ': O
,.
)? t
!ii ) I ,, ,'!L li?l
7
-/
'.i 'i'

¶76

DISPOSING^{(IF THE WRIT APPEAL} WITHOUT^{CC STS}

¶77

1 )
I
'l
{Y
]''
t:A!. '

The Chief General Manager and 3 others v. Mekala Venkata Ramana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief General Manager and 3 others v. Mekala Venkata Ramana

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

Union of India Vs Md.Ibrahim

Bhukya Sai Praveen Vs The State of Telangana

V. Subba Rao, S/o.v. Seshagiri Rao, Vs The Union of India

Corporation Medical College and Hospital Vs M/S. Sai Pharmacy (Wholesale and Retail)

Mohd. lmran Ali Vs The Ts Residential Educational Society

Sri.R.Nagendra Naik Vs Reserve Bank of India