Allowed

Dr. B. Mani Kumari, Hyd v. Dr. M. Markandeyulu, Guntur and 2 Others

Telangana HC18 Oct 2023WP/19457/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Associate Professor, challenged Administrative Tribunal and High Court orders quashing her promotion. The Court ruled that since she was allowed to continue in the promoted post until retirement, she is entitled to continue service and release pensionary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the Tribunal and High Court set aside; respondents directed to release pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

Dr. B. Mani Kumari, Hyd Vs Dr. M. Markandeyulu… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

t I

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI

¶7

THE HoNoURABLE SRI .IusTIcTTTDIvTAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAo

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1 9457 0F 2008

¶9

Between:

¶10

Dr. _8.[\4ani Kumari, W/o Dr KR p. Ranga Rao, Aged 47 years, Occ : Associate Professor Ptastic Surgery, o/o principar, dsmania tr.rdarcal c<iileg., ri"ii nvil"rriJa

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

!r M Markandeyulu, S/o. Sri Radha Krishna tVlurthy, aged 49 years, Occ : Assistant Professor (prastic Surgery), Guntur Medicir cottege,^'Guntur, sF-i , Shiva Apartments, 2/5, Arundelpet, Guntur.

¶14

The Government of Andhra pradesh, Rep by its principal Secretary, Health, 3. - The Director of IVedical and Family Welfare Medical Education, Andhra pradesh, Department, Secretarrat, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.^'

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Articre 226 of the constrtution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directron more in the nature of writ certiorari calling for the records relating to order of the Hon'ble A.p. Administrative Tribunal dated 12-6-2008 in o.A.No.4g26 of 2oo7 and consequential orders dated 11-08-2008 in Review M.A.No.156i of 2008 in o.A.No.4856 of 2oor and quash the same and further directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Associate Professor and court her service fro.m the date of her original promotion with a ll^{'consequential} benefits.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : --

¶18

Counsel lor the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Gp FOR SERVICES _ | The Courf made the following ORDER

¶19

.'*_.I

¶20

IION'BI-E STTI JTiSTICE ABHINAND KT,NIAR SHAVILI ANI)

¶21

IIO\OT It,\ BI, I., SR I .ITIS'f I(-I1 NA \I-\ ',\ RA Pt R, .' ES I I\, :\ It ItAO

¶22

W.P. No. 19457 of 2008

¶23

ORDER : (Pcr AKS.l)

¶24

This Writ Pe titior-r is lrle d agglie r cd br tlrr- orde-rs ltasscd b1, the A.P. Adrrinistrative^'[-ribunal, Hyderabad {lbr brevitv^,rhe Tribunal') in O.A.No.4856 ol 2007 datcd l2-06-1008. ancl also rhe ordcls passcd in levis,' M.A.No. l-561 of 2008 in O.A No.4U56 of' 1007ctt ll-08-1008

¶25

2 I lcard Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, lealned counsel lbr the pctitiorler and thc learned (iovcrnmcnt Pleadcr fbr Ser.r,ices-ll appearing for the respondenl Nos.2 and 3

¶26

It has been contended b1, the pctitioner that shc was prorroted as Associatc Prolessor of Plastic Sr-rrgery vide proceedings 05-09-2006 and thc I respondenl hercin had challengetl thc said promotion of the pcririoner b) Iiling O.A.No.4856 ol'207 and thc^'l-ribunal u,as plcased to scr aside thc prornotion ol the petitionel and directed the l'' rcspondenL,s case

¶27

2- i.t s J &^RR..,i ',\ t) ". ).i.-/ ol );a1

¶28

be consideLed^{lor thc panel vcar 200(ru,ithout appreciating any of} the contentions^{raised by thc petitioncrvidc ordersdt l2-06-2008'} Aggrieved^{by the said orders passed b1' the I'ribunal'tht'petitioner} has preferled^{Rcvicti M'A No l56l o1'2008 in the saidO Aand} the Tribunal^{in the said Revievu"corrsidered the case of the} petitioner and^{hcld that thcrc are vacatrciesol'AssociateProfessor'} therefore, olficial^{respondentsare directed to issue llccessary} orders.^{However, the Review Petitiorr prefer.redby the petitioner} was dismissed.^{Whentherewere t*'o posts} tn existence,^the 'lribunal ought to have direcLed the case ol l" respondcnt^{alsoto bo} considered along^{r'vith the petitioncr' but the -lribunalhas} dismissed^{the saidreview}

¶29

Bc that as it^{nray,the pctitioner was not revertedand} she was continued^{and allowed to retire fromservice'Therefore'} appropriate^{ordersbe passed in the Writ Pctitionby setting aside} the orders o[^{the Tribunal in O'A'No 4856oi 2007 dt 12-06-2008} and also set^{aside the orders passed ir-r review M'A No' I 561 of} 2008 in O.A.No.4856^{of 2007dt' I l-08-2008'}

¶30

lrls,./ & ,RR\J \l i) .^:)1J71)F 20t)a

¶31

Having consideled the sLrbrnissions made br both the lcar-ncd counsel. this Court is oi'the considercd r'iew that since the petrtioner \'as not rcvefled in pulsuance o1' the orders of thc -l ribunal and the pctitioner ivas also retired liom scrvice. this Courr is ol'the vierv that since the petitioner was allolr,ed to continue in thc promoted post, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are dirccted Lo release the pension and pensionary benefits in t'ar,our of the pctitioner, il not already released

¶32

With these observat-ions. thc Writ Petition is closecl -l-here shall be no ordcr as to costs.

¶33

1 . Miscellaneous pe titions, pending if any, sha Il stand

¶34

c losed.

¶35

¶36

"'^[S,Eiift+Ht3l8iIXX //TRUE COPY/I <% SECTIdN^OFFICER

¶37

To 1 Two CCs^{to GP for Services-l, HighCourt for the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶38

2 lii':,"dC i; d;^{J. R'.Mano ha r Rao'Ad vocate [o P u c]} Two CD^CoPies

SA GJA"i l

HIGH COURT

DATED:1811012023

ORDER

5lATE o
o ,?
.,:,i\ "rj$ i'c)
i' \'.' r
)o a*,
-!
t, -. <br>- + n !'!: i
--_ --'.: - -::--

WP.No.19457 of 2008

CLOSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS

!
s-
M
-v>
a

Dr. B. Mani Kumari, Hyd v. Dr. M. Markandeyulu, Guntur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. B. Mani Kumari, Hyd v. Dr. M. Markandeyulu, Guntur and 2 Others

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 Union of India Vs Ch. S.R.K. Sarma.

B. Ratna Vs Sangumuri Balakrishna

Smt.M.Suseela, Vs The State of Telangana

Yellaiah Nimmala Vs Union of India

P.Nagarajan Vs Prl. Secretary to the Govt of Ap

D.Srinivasulu, Vs the Union of India