Disposed

K. Venugopal and Ano. v. C and M.D., Ts Spdcl and 2 Ors.

Telangana HC19 Sept 2023WP/22683/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in Writ Petition No. 22683 of 2017, filed by utility employees challenging their non-promotion, disposed of the petition by directing a specific respondent to consider the petitioners' promotion claims within two months, taking into account a letter dated 12.06.2017 regarding a request to review disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners' claims for promotion within two months, taking into account a letter dated 12.06.2017.

K. Venugopal and Ano. Vs C and M.D., Ts… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22683 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Venugopal, S/o. Satyan arayana, aged about 40 years, Occ ALM-Dhoma Section, Vikarabad Division, Viakarabad ( Ranga Reddy) District.

¶10

M. Rukmaiah, S/o Pochaiah, aged about 35 years, Om AlM-lVominpet Section, Vikarabad Division, Vikarabad (Ranga Reddy) District.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Telangana State Southern Power Distnbution Corporation Limited (TSSPDCL), Vidyul Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶14

The Superintending Engineer, Operations/ RRC (S), Nanalnagar X Road, TSSPDCL, Vikarabad

¶15

The Divisional Engineer ( Electrical), Operation, TSSPDCL, Vikarabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constituhon of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioners from the post of Assrstant Lineman to the post of Lineman, while promoting the juniors of the petitioners to the post of Lineman vide proceedings in Memo No. DEE/oPNKB/JAotAdmtc2lD. No. 268/1 7 dated 3i-05-2017, as illegal, arbitrary and viorative of principres of naturar juslice, consequenfly direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Lineman with affect from 31_ 5-2017 , as per the seniority rist pubrished vide Lr. No. DEE/opNKB/JAO /Adm/c2 / D.No. 536/16 dated 16-8-2016.

¶18

{

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 27933 OF 20171

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances staled in the affrdavit filed in support of the^petitron, the^High Court^{maybe pleased to} DIRECT respondents consider the case of^petitioner for^{promotion from} the^post of Assistant Lineman to the^post of Lineman^{in Vikarabad Divrsion, as per the} senionty list published vide Lr No. DEE/OP/VKB/JAO^lAdmlC2 /^{D No.536/16} dated^'1 6-8-2016,^pending disposal of the marn^{Writ Petition.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. GEETA FOR SRI G.RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDDY^{(SC FOR} TSTRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE^{HON,BLESRI JUSTICEJ'SREENIVASRAO}

wRIT^PETITTON

No. 226^{83of2 oL7}

oRD^ER:

{

This^{Writ Petition isiiled seeking thc following} reliel:^-

¶29

"^{to issue tr/;t} 'tr^{der ordirecton} pa Mandontus'^{11 icut o rt} a. "::.,,'^{o(Ltt^" 'r} ;: ^,::;', -: i:' -^ thD^" :;,,:{ n,-titioners Yi', ;[^to respondants^{r.^} '^.,:::Ti;:1,1"'n",[ ,no pos.r^of thi^{post o/ Asststunr} 1"":"'1:' ;l''';n's' oI^the Linemon'^{uhite promoi"!} ':'" liI)?I1"' ''o" "iur.i,ie, opl vxsl petitione.rs .,",_,n" !fi )^{i' r} "i'^{iii) t t d atcd s'' o} ?' ::"' 5:$7"f;X; " a s^{i t te g a t'} "' ? "' : :o^;::!. ::': ::: : i r" f f, i';i'' i;Z {,;::xLT:,,'iii"ff^{;,;,,i,,i"^'.,,-,"i:!}":i';,';,',i;, poir of^Linemon*.u l.itt')-l,t'^".,,,ni;.n"a uide i=^{per the ,'i.'i|J"oo)'io^i} iz,o N" sso/ LT.N;.DEE/^OP/VIl 1'tl. i"*a^{t 6-08 20 t 6'"}

¶30

Heard^{Smt'Geetha'learned counsel rePresentlng} for^the Rao,^{learnedcounsel} Sri^G.Rajeshwar Standing R.Vinod^{ReddY' learned} petitioners,^{and Sri}

¶31

Counsel^{for resPondents'}

¶32

2 Learned^{counseifor the Petitioners submits that} and Petitioner^No'2 '^{joined inthe} petitioner^{No ' 1} Junror respond.ents-Corporation^{on2l 'O7 '2OO7 as} Lineman^{on contract basisand ttrereafter, their servrces} were^{regular ized on 1o' 11'2OO9'Later,on 24'Ol'201'5'}

¶33

¶34

the petitioners were appointed :rs Assistant Lineman. The responclents_Corporation prepared seniority list of Assistant l_ineman in Vikarabad Division and the same was published on 31.10.201S, wherein, n:tme of petitioner. No.1 was placed at Sl.No.2O and the name of petitior-rer No.2 was placed at Sl.No.45. Thereafter, again on 16.Oa.20 16, the respondents_Corporation issr_red another seniority Iist of Assistant Lineman and as per the said seniority list, name of petitioner No. 1 11.a5 placed at Sl.No.24, whereas, petitioner No.2 was placcci at Sl.No.49. Respondent No.3 rssucd proceedings vide memo dated 31.OS.2O 17 affecting promotion in the cadre of Assistant Lineman to the post of Lineman whereas the petitioners, were not considered for promotion on the alleged ground of pending departmental proceedings

¶35

+. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners were promoted frorn the post of Assistant Lineman to the post of Lineman but pr..rrsuant to the

.,f

raI

L6.O8.2016,^{ttre Petitioners} seniority^{list Publishedon} are entitled^{tobe placed as per their seniority to the said} promotlon^{on Par with junrors}

¶40

5 Learned^{StandingCounsel forresPondents submrts} thatD.P.C.forthepanelyearof20|617washeldon to the^{imPositionof the malor} 17.04-2017^{and due} both^the Petitioncrs'^the names punishment^against post^of for Promotion^tothe were not^considered of^the as after^{rnodification} Lineman.^Assoon the^{resPondents CorPoratlonhad} punishment^orders ' the Petitioners^{tothe Post ofLineman'} promoted addressed^{a letterto} resPondent^No'3 However, No.DEtr/oP lvKBlJAol No.2 vide^ietter respondent Adm/C2/D.No'31^{1, dt'12'06'2O17 to accord permlsston} to review^{the D'P'C'As soon as reply from respondent} No,2 is^{received by respondent No'3 the claim of the} petitioners^{will be considered accordingly'}

¶41

Having^{considered the rival sr'rbmissions made by} the respective^{parties and after perusal of the record' it}

¶42

¶43

¶44

rs not rn dispute fact that, the respondents- Corporation published the seniority list of Assistant Lineman on 16.08.2O16 for the purpose of promotion and ers per the sarnc, petitioner No.I stood at Sl.No.24 and petitioner No.2 stoocl at Sl.No.49 Further, the respondents conclucted D.p.C. for the panel year 20t6_J7 on f 7 .Oq.2O17 and due to the punishment orders imposed against both the petitioners, the petitioners names were not considcred for promotion to the post of Lineman in thc D . P. C. n hich was conducted on t7 .O4 .2O 17 . Holvever, thc said punishment orders were modified bv the appellate authority on IO.OS.2O7Z. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners were promotecl to the post of Lineman with effect from 37.O5.2O12. The main grievance of the petitioners i:Lre that they are entitled to promotion on par with juniors w.e.f.31.OS.2017 basirrg on the seniority list dated 16.08.2016

..)t

d counter^{affidavit' u'herein' rt} 7 . ResPondenL^{No 3 file} respondent^{No-3 addrcsseda} is sPecificallY^{stated that} resPondent^{No'2 toaccor-d} lctter^{on12'06'2O\7ro} . and^{the same is Pendtng} permission^{to reviewthe D'P'C} before^{respondent No 2}

¶49

tt. In view^{of the said averrnents' the writ petitionls} disposed^{of directing respondentNo 2 to consider the} claims^{of the petitionersduly taking into consideratit)n} ol the^{letterissued byrespondentNo 3dated} 12JJ6-2017^{within a periodof two (O2) monlhs from the} date^{of receipt of a copy of this order'}

¶50

g . Accordingly,^{the writ petition is d'isposed of' No}

¶51

costs

¶52

Pending^{miscellaneousapplications, ifanY' sha1l}

¶53

stand closed.

¶54

SD/.T.SRIM(AS DEPUTY REGyTRAR c /ffRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER to'', . ,n" Telangana State Southern Power Distrihution Corporation Limited {rssPDCL),^{viovrt ['ouirii"b"''i"jid'ti' Hvderauao'rep bv its chairman} , ?l: tt?:yllfl"3o[fi;to[;n,"eer,^{operations/RRC (s)' NanarnagarX Road'} TSSPDCL, Vikarabad 3. The Divisional^{Engineer( Electrical)' Operation' TSSPDCL' Vikarabad'} ;. d;^-Cc t;^{s Rr--c lnakSnwnRRAo} {{v9ca!e-[o^{P u c]} 6. il;6c i;^{sFii n.vir.rb5 nroDi(sc FoR rsrilANsco) IoPUC]} 6. Two CD^CoPies BSK GJP€

,..

I I i i

HIGH COURT

DATED:19 t}gt2023

ORDER

WP.No.22683 of 2O1t

.rt,y',. €
on
,., ',-.!.
/ '-- ..1 .
,i
2 6 SLP 208 ,l
\ Li

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

K. Venugopal and Ano. v. C and M.D., Ts Spdcl and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Venugopal and Ano. v. C and M.D., Ts Spdcl and 2 Ors.

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

L. Suryanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

P.Raja Lingam, Nalgonda District Vs Prl Secy, Housing Dept, Hyderabad and 4 Others

Kancharla Seetharam Reddy, Vs B. Sreedhar Babu

Smt. Lagisetti Sulochana Vs The Superintending Engineer

Md. Afzal Baba, Vs The Stte of Telangana

Ms. Bathula Mounika, Nalgonda Dist Vs Md, Tspdcl., Mint Compound, Hyd and 2 Others