Disposed

S. Venu v. T. Raghavender Reddy

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WA/893/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Appeal No. 893 of 2023, the Telangana High Court addressed an interim order stalling all health department promotions due to a challenge regarding seniority of transferred officers. The bench observed that stalling promotions disrupted administration. It modified the lower court's order to permit adhoc promotions while preserving them if contesting respondents succeed in their main writ pe

What did the court decide?

Modified the single judge's order to permit adhoc promotions; affirmed that if contesting respondents succeed, adhoc promotions must be regularized; appeal disposed without costs.

S. Venu Vs T. Raghavender Reddy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 893 OF 2023

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters^patent preferred Against Order Dated 2810812023 in WP.No.23780 ol 2023. on the fite of the High Court. Between:

¶9

1 S Venu, Aged 35_years, Occ. Junior Assistant, 0/o DM and HO, Suryapet,

¶10

_^{Nalgonda District, Telangana.}

¶11

K Vinod Kumar, Sio Sri. K. Valya Naik, Aged 29 years, Occ. Junior Assistant,

¶12

^{0/o Primary Health Centre, Lingal, NagarkurnoolDistrici.}

¶13

^{0/o Primary Health Centre, Lingal, NagarkurnoolDistrici.}

¶14

3 Sambaraju, S/o- Sri Sambaiah, RgeO.+3 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, 0/o Office of the DM and HO, Mahabubabad Mdndal and District.

¶15

4 Ch. Madhusudhan, S/o Sri Guruvaiah, Aged. 4g years, Occ. Junior Assistant, oio Office of the DM and HO, Suryapet Mandal aid District.

¶16

1. Chand Pasha, S/o Sri Khaia^'Moinuddin, Aged. 43 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, 0/o Office of the DM and HO, Jogu'iamaba Gadwdl Mandal and District.

¶17

6 Raya Venk^atesh,- S/o Sri. Raya Sadishivudu, Aged. 35 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, 0/o Office of the Govt. General Hos[ital, Siddipet Mandal and District.

¶18

Ponnam Ramesh, S/o Sri. Ponnam Mallesham, Aged. 34 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, Office of the Govt. Medical College, Siddi-pet Man'dal and District.

¶19

e nl9!i A1ay, S/9 Sri. Knshnahari, Aged. 31 y:ears, Oic. Junior Assistant, Office of the Govt. Medical College, Siddipet Manbal and District.

¶20

M -Prudhvi Raj,- S/o Srl ltTl Shankar, Aged. 32 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, Office of the DM and HO, Mahabubabad-Mandal^-and District.

¶21

10.Md. Saher Pasha, S/o. Sri. Md. .Saleem, Aqed. 33 vears. Occ. Junior Assistant Office of the DM and HO, Siddipet Man?al and District.

¶22

...APPELLANT(S)

¶23

AND

¶24

1 T. Raghavender Reddy, S/o. Sri T. Prathap Reddy, Aged. 38 years, Occ. J_unior Assistant, R/o H.No.145208/20 Krishna tta-gar,-lVanaUubnagar District.

¶25

2 Q,^{Egqlappa,S/o Sri. Bheemappa, Aged.33 year!, Occ. JuniorAdsistant,} Rio H.No.124 Bommanapad Viilage, Narayaniret Mandal and District.

¶26

J. Laxmikanth Re{{y, Qlo Q1i, Velkat Ram Reddy, Aged. 47 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o H.No.42106151 lBlNl Madhura Nagar, Mahdbubnagar District.

¶27

4 C. Venkatramulu, S/o Sri. C. Shankaraiah, Aged. Z1 years, Occ. J-unior Assistant, R/o. H-No.592, Vhayaka Chourast=a, Thiminajipet village and Mandal. Mahabubnagar District.

¶28

5 Avula Ramesh, S/o Sri. Avula Mallapa, Age. 50 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o H No 4168lHl0l10, KurhinisettyColony, Mahabubnagar District. N. Vijaya Kumar, S/o Sri. N. Shant6q Kumir, Aqe. 41 yea-rs, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o H.No.578/13/B Laxminagar Colony, Jadbherla,Mahabubnagar District.

¶29

7 K Krishnaiah, S/o Sri. K Rang?lah Age._49 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o H No 235/l Ranoared.ryg^udiRalapui Mancia-r, trianabuonag;, oisiii;." "'"

¶30

8 Katheri Hanmamira, D/65r ka,i;;i;;;i;;^'A;" 42 years. occ Junior Assistant. R/o Government rr,{"alaf coii"g;-a;;,Y;rr, Mahabubnagar District

¶31

O l,Vjqnly Kumar, S/o Sri p rrrriilaran ng""Iat y;"rr, occ. JuniorAssistant, _^{R/o Madharam Viilaqe,} Urakonda tvtinOaj, fVagj;i;rnoot District

¶32

_^{R/o Madharam Viilaqe,} Urakonda tvtinOaj, fVagj;i;rnoot District

¶33

'l0 K Vinod Kumar. S/o"sri pirrrrLo iilo,;'g;"i6'y;r., occ. JuniorAssistant, . .^{R/o-H'No717t1, Brahmaaavadi} Madooi rr,'-anaa'i friiayanpet Distrrct.

¶34

'l 1. R. Anjaney_utu. S/o. Sri namCnjnJriian Ag". s*6 ;"rrs, Occ Junior 6;,i;.Tr,^{R/o H No 517 chintarasericnr""p"iir(lrndirlvJnJr"onrsr}

¶35

N. Vitayabhasker Reddv, g4o g.tj, fV papi Reddy. Age. 55 years, Occ. Junior Assistant. R/o Sinoam6oddy Vi,age, rr,rlalirr,,:J,loiilnrrhr6ro.lgri-Di;lliii,

¶36

'13.B Sumana. Dto SriB. R"igih*a'."A6" ,5 y;;;;.t.". JuniorAssistant, R/o. . .^{7512418.Lakshmi nagar Colony, frla"naOuOriaoai} D]strict.

¶37

14 M..Ko1dappa, S/o SriM c^opri Ag" 38 v"J[,'o1'. JuniorAssistant, R/o. H No. 2 1 6. Abanoaoarnam ci rlapaE rr,,an<i"rl niri'Juunrgar District.

¶38

15.B.. Swarnapraoni, Wb sr.i niwiG A!; li ;Jarq occ. Junior Assistant, Rio H No 565 Vertoor vilage, peadama"ndadi 'lrr:J"i'rr, r.rrdriiririd"i'oiriiibt.

¶39

Teekya Naik, S/o Sri. Rekha y Naik, Age. 49 years, Occ. Junior Assistant R/o H.No. 1 4324182 Christiana pally Villa ge, Mahabubnagar District

¶40

Pandu Ran gaiah, S/o. Sn Bheema iah, Age. 55 years, Occ. Junior Assistant R/o. Hasna pur Village, Booth pur Mandal, MahabUbna gar District

¶41

K. Nagaiah , S/o Sri Mallaiah , Age. 33 years, Occ. Ju nior Assistant, R/o H.No.152, Vetgonda Village, Bijnepally Mandat, Nagarkurnool District

¶42

E. Parvathamma, D/o Sri. Ba lakishtaiah, Age. 32 years, Occ. Junior Assistant R/o H No.'1 166, Macharam Village, Amarabad Mandal Nagarkurnool District

¶43

)n Gaddam Prabhakar, S/o Sri Rajaiah, Age 55 years, Occ. Junior Assistant Rio. H.No.221264,/3 Sanjeevaiahnagar, Siddipet District

¶44

Muthyala Thiru pathi, S/o Sri. Shankar, Age. 33 years, Occ. Junior Assistant R/o. H.No.69'l , Naryanaraopet Villa ge and Mandal, Siddi pet District

¶45

R. Sai Akhil, S/o. Sri. Srinivas , Age.26 years, Occ. Junio r Assistant, R/o H.No.33/1 Poosata Vill age.Su Ithanabad Mandal, Peddapalli Diskict

¶46

Katthi Vanaja, Wo Sri G. Pra kash, Age 34 years, Occ junior Assistant, R/o H.No.'1 123 3, Bharathnagar, Siddipet District

¶47

24 K. Nagesh, S/o Sri B oodhaiah , Age. 41 years, Occ. Junior Assistant Rio Japthi Shivnoor Vilta ge Narsin g Mandal, A/edak District

¶48

Kuruva Srinivasulu, S/o. Sri. Kishtanna, Age. 35 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o. H No.195 Pala wai village, Maldakal Mandal, Jogul amba Gadwal District.

¶49

26.G. Raju, S/o. Sri. Komaraiah, Age. 33 years, Occ. J unior Assistanl, R/o H.No.4148 Muthku lapally Village, Akkampet Manda l, Siddipet District

¶50

P. Navatha, D/o S ri. P Raji Reddy, Age. 33 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o H.No.336 Veenavanka Villag e and Mandal, Karimn agar District

¶51

M. Venkateswarl u, S/o. Sri Kotaiah, Age. 52 years, Occ. Junior Assistant R/o. Violasi ngaram Village, Ananthairi Mandal, Suryapet District

¶52

G. Srinivas, S/o. Sri Bikshamaiah ,Age. 48 years, Occ. Junior Assistant R/o

¶53

Tha llakhammam pahad village, Su ryapet Mandal and District

¶54

Y. Laxminaryana, S/o S ri. Roshaiah, Age. 47 years, Occ. Junior Assistant R/o. H.No.1 B811112 Bhagathsingh Ndga r, Suryapet District

¶55

31 Veta Saida Rao, S/o Sri Venkateswarlu , Age.4'l years, Occ. Junior

¶56

Assistant, R/o Munagala Village and Ma ndal,Suryapet District

¶57

32.J. Naresh, S/o Sri Krishnaih, Age. 38 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, Rio lvlukunda puram vill age, Munagala Ma ndal, Suryapet District

¶58

1. R. Praveen, S/o Sri Govind, Age, 36 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, Rio. H.No.3768, Rajiv Nagar village, Su ryapet Arlandal and District

¶59

K. Anitha, S/o Sri. Saidi Reddy, Age. 34 years, Occ_ Junior Assistant Rio Barkathgudem village, Mu nagala Mandal Suryapet District

¶60

35.M. Rambabu, S/o Sri Thirupaiah, Age. 33 years, Occ. Junior Assistant Rt/o Vapelsingaram village Huzurnagar Mandal Suryapet District

¶61

Pattipaka Venkateswarl u, S/o P Bhadraiah, Age. 43 years, Occ. Junior Assistant. R/o. Dorakun ta Village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District

¶62

B. Veerababu, S/o Sri Lingaiah, Age 32 years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o Dorakunta villaqe. Kod ad Mandal, Su rvap-e,t District

¶63

¶64

38 P. Pra-s,ad, S/o.-Sri Krishnaiah, Age. 4li years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o. H. No 330. Bommepally Village, Kangal Mandal. Nalgonda District.

¶65

1. ^^ Mandala Venkateshwarlg, _Slg S! Pullaiah, Age. 56-years, Occ. Junior Assistant, R/o H.No.0042/C79 Medaram post-RangareddyguOem, NalgonOa District.

¶66

Kotla Pavani, wo sri. G_. sridhar, Age. 36 years, occ. Junior Assistant, R/o.Plot No.63, Panchayat Raj, Teacher-s Colony.saioornagar, Champapei, Ranga Reddy District.

¶67

The State of Telangana,-Rep_, by Secretary to the Government, Health, ,^ ryledr:g|^{and Family.Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad_SOOO22.} 4;U. rhe urrector of^public Health and Family welfare, on/l aho HS campus, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶68

43.The Director of [Vledicat Education, DM and HS Campus, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶69

The Director, Government Medicai College, UafraUuiinafar.

¶70

45.The District Medical and Health Officer, Mahabubnagar.

¶71

46.The Principal, Government Medical College, Nagarkurnool

¶72

The District lr4edical and Health Officer, Nagarkurnool.

¶73

48.The Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Siddipet.

¶74

¶75

49.The Principal, Government Medical College, Suryapet District. 50.The Principal, Government Medical Qollege, Nalgonda r'.,flll=r"O*DENTS

¶76

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶77

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the Learned singre Judge dated 28.08.203 in tA No.1 of 2023 in wp.No.2378o of 2023, pending disposar of the Writ Appeal.

¶78

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI p.V. KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 40: SRI SRIRAM POLALI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.41 TO 50: Gp FOR SERVICES_II

¶79

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶80

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA]ESHWAR RAO

¶81

WRIT APPEAL Na.893 OE ZO23

¶82

JUDGMENT: (per AKS,I)

¶83

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the interlocutory order, dated 28.08.2023, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.23780 of 2O23 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶84

Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 to 40, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondent N os.41 to 50.

¶85

Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the appellants are working as Junior Assistants in the Health Department and the contesting respondents are all Village Revenue Officers, who are working in the Revenue Department. The posts of Village Revenue Officers were abolished by the Act 10 of 2020, dated 19.O9.2O2O and the Village Revenue Officers were transferred to various departments in equivalent posts and some of the Village Revenue Officers, such as, contesting respondents were transferred as Junior Assistants in Medical and Health Department and the official respondents have prepared a seniority list of lunior Assistants

¶86

AKS,J & RRN,J W.A.No.893 oi2023 2

¶87

working in the Public Health and Family Welfare Department^y/Ue proceedings/ dated 26.07.2023, wherein the contesting respondents were placed at the bottom of the seniority list. Aggrieved by the preparation of the final seniority list by the official respondents. the contesting respondents approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23780 of 2023 contending that the earlier services rendered by them as Village Revenue Officers should be counted for the purpose of fixing the seniority, but, however, the contesting respondents have not impleaded the affected persons/ as such, the said affected persons filed the present appeal. The learned Single Judge of this Court v/de order, dated 28.08.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023, has stalled the entire promotions till the disposal of W.P.No.31725 of 2022 and batch, which is pending before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein there was a challenge to the Act 70 of 2O2O.

¶88

Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the appellants are working as lunior Assistants from the date of their initial appointment in the Public Health and Family Welfare Department and if the contesting respondents, who were initially Village Revenue Officers and subsequently transferred as Junior Assistants in Public Health and Family Welfare Department, are allowed to count their earlier services, as Village Revenue Officers, they would be^placed over and above the appellants. If the entire

¶89

AKS,J & I{I{N,J W A No.89.] ol202l

¶90

promotions are stalled pending adjudication by a Division Bench, the entire administration would be put to inconvenience and the chances of promotion of the appellants would be severely affected. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single ludge of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.23780 of 2023, dated 28.08.2023 and allow the Writ Ap pea l.

¶91

Learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the official respondent; had contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in stalling the entire promotions ln the Health Department. The issue whether the seniority list prepared by the official respondents is right or wrong will be adjudicated at the time of final hearing of the said writ petition. But if the entire promotions are stalled, the entire administration would come to a halt. Therefore, permit the official respondents to go ahead with the Adhoc promotion in the interest of administration and if the contesting respondents succeed, then their seniority will be renewed accordingly and the Adhoc promotions can be made as regular promotions accordingly.

¶92

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents had contended that seniority list has been erroneously prepared by the official respondents. The contesting respondents, who earlier worked as

¶93

(

¶94

AKS.J & RItN,J W.A.No.89l of 2023

¶95

¶96

I I t ,

¶97

Village Revenue Officers, had rendered more than two to three decades of service as Village Revenue Officers. If the earlier services rendered by the contesting respondents are not taken into account while determining the seniority. then they would be. put to irreparable loss and serious hardship. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in stalling the entire promotions pending adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Act No.10 of 2020 is under challenge. Therefore, there are no merits to allow the writ appeal.

¶98

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has stalled the entire promotions in the Health Department, thereby affecting the administration. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the official respondents be permitted to make promotions on Adhoc basis in the interest of Administration and if the contesting respondents succeed in the said writ petitlon, their cases have to be renewed, even the Adhoc promotions, so effected also, have to be renewed and then regular promotions can be effected subject to outcome of the writ petition.

¶99

With the above sald observations, the order, dated 28.08.2023, passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.237BO of 2023 by the learned

¶100

AKS.J & RIlN,J W.A.No it9l of 2023

¶101

¶102

Single Judge of this Court is modified^{and the WritAppeal is disposed}

¶103

of accordingly. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶104

Miscellaneous Applications, if any,^{pendingin this Writ Appeal}

¶105

shall stand closed.

¶106

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Secretary to the Government, Health, Medical and^{Family Welfare} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana^{- 500022.}

¶111

2 Thd Director of Public Healih and Family Welfare,^{DM and HS Campus,Koti,} Hyderabad.

¶112

a The Director of Medical Education, DM and HS Campus,^{Koti,Hyderabad.}

¶113

4.The Director, Government Ir/edical College, Mahabubnagar.

¶114

5 The District Medical and Health Officer, Mahabubnagar.

¶115

6 The Principal, Government tt/edical College, Nagarkurnool.

¶116

7 The District IVIedical and Health Officer, Nagarkurnool.

¶117

B. The Superintendent, Government General Hospital,^Siddipet.

¶118

The Principal, Government Medical College, Suryapet^District.

¶119

10 The Principal, Government lt/ledical Qollege, Nalgonda^District. 11 One CC to SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH, Advocate tOPUCI

¶120

12 One CC to SRI SRIRAM POLALI, Advocate IOPUC] '13 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court for the^{State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶121

14 Two CD Copies

¶122

PSK. RK

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210912023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.893 ot 2023

o I
,)-(
s
ltq
11
i9
y l)t'l

¶129

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

¶130

<br>1p)Z

S. Venu v. T. Raghavender Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Venu v. T. Raghavender Reddy

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

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. Vs Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Dr. Uzma Viquar Vs The Director

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others Vs G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano

D Sandhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana

The Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited Vs Sabbu Rajamouli

D.S.Rajendernath , Vs The Central Administrative Tribunal