Disposed

M.Nagabhushanam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/22811/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench disposal of a writ petition where the petitioner sought exemption for promotion. The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation without reference to a specific memo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2021 regarding exemption from accounts test in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.225, without reference to the dated 08.09.

M.Nagabhushanam Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

l^''l

¶2

[3301 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE^{FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEfi/BER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEPULLA KARTHIK}

¶7

WRIT PETI^{TION NO:22811 0F 2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Nagabhushanam,^{S/o. Ir/'Ramaiah,.Agedabout 57 ye-ar9,Occ-, Juniro} Assistant, O/o.^{execuiv"e Engineei, f iig-"t]on} .Division'^{N6-3' Nagar Kurnool'} (NagarKurnool District),^{MahabubnagarDrslrrct'} ...pETlTlONER

¶10

AND

¶11

l.TheStateofTelangana,rep.byitsPrincipals-ecre.tlry'lrrigatlonDepartment'' i"L"di"r-s"ct"taiirt, BRRK 6uilding, lqlk B^und Road' Hyderabao' z irriiii'siit"i^{-rn- chlJr,} inomin).^{t an-o cAD, Department' Erramanzil'} Hvderabad.

¶12

g. Tt""Srp"ri.tending Engineer, lrrigation^{CircleNo'1'Nagar Kurnool'Mahabub} Naoar District-

¶13

TfiXtffi'Eigin"er,^{trrigation Department, Nagar Kurnool, Mahabub Nagar} District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

PetitionunclerArticle226ol|heConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an order^{or orders or direction or writ' more particularly one in the} nature of writ^{of mandamus declaring the inactlonof the respondents in not} consideringtherepresentationofthepetitionerdatedoTl01l202lseeking issuance of^{ordersof exemption from passing accounts test for PWD officersand} subordinates^{as per G.O.tvlsNo.225, dt.18- 05-1999as per the eligibilityand} qualifications of the^{petitioner herein, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles} l4and16oftheConstitutionoflndiaandconsequentlydirecttherespondentsto issue necessary^{orders of exemptionfrompassing the accountstest for PWD} officersanclsuborclinatesasperG'Otr/sNo225'dt18-05-l.gg9attheearliestto enable the^{petitioner hereinto applyfor promotionto SeniorAssistant'}

¶16

¶17

/' t lA No: 1 oF 2021

¶18

Petition under section^'1 5r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents herein to consider the petitioner herein for promotion to Senior Assistant from Junior Assistant as per the erigibre exemption craimed by the petitioner herein from passing the accounts test for pwD officers and subordinates as per G.O.Ms No.225, dt:18-0S-.1999 without reference to the memo,. A/emo. No. C E( 1 yNGKL/DC EiNr p Al 2021, 1 0 1 7, Dt: 08 _Og_2021 .

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt SR|HARI REDDY AVUTHU Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES ll

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.22811OF. 2O2l

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri Ramakrishna Kulkarni, learned counsel representing Sri Srihari Reddy Avuthu, learned^counsel appearing for the petitioner; ald lea.rned^Government Pleader for Services - II appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has completed eleven^{(11) years of service in} the cadre of Junior Assistart^{(initial cadre)withoutany} promotion and submits that there are seventeen⁽¹⁷⁾ vacalcies for the post of Senior Assistant under the^control of respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the^petitioner further submits that the petitioner^{was placed} at^{Sl.No.4 in} the frnal seniority list uide Memo^{No.CE(1)/NGKL/DCE/} NTPA/ Seniority / 2O2l / 957, dated 12.08.2021.^{It is further} submitted that the petitioner had appeared^fortl.e accounts test for PWD officers and^{subordinateson} 11.05.2010 and again on^{18.07.2O1 1, but, unfortunately} he could not clear the same.^{It is also contended that the} petitioner is aged about^{45 years} and^he is entitled^{to seek}

¶27

¶28

PK,J W.P.No.22a71 of 2O21

¶29

exemption from passing the accounts test for^pWD officers and subordinates as per G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 18.05.1999. However, the respondents are erroneously asking the details as to whether the petitioner has appeared and cleared the examination or not. It is further submitted that, as the petitioner is entitled for exemption under G.O.Ms,225, dated 18.05.1999, he made a representation, dated 29.71.2021 to respondent No.4 requesting to consider his case. Therefore prayed this Court to direct respondent No.4 to pass orders on the representation, dated 29.11.2O2L.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader for Services - II submits that the respondents would consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 29 .II.2O2L and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶31

In view of the a_foresaid submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to consider petitioner's representation, dated 29.11.2O2I, without reference to the Memo.No.CE(1)/NGKL/DCE/ NTPA/2O2I, lO17, dated Oa.Og.2O2I and to pass

¶32

¶33

PK,J W.P.No.22877 of 2O21

¶34

appropriate orders in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.225,

¶35

dated 18.05.1999.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶37

closed. No costs

¶38

¶39

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

'To/

SECTION OFFICER

, The Principal Secretary, lrrigation Department, Telangana Secretarial, BRRK /2. Plldgg: 11k^prlg Bgr.1,^{Fryoeranablsiai"br'r"#,Ysunu.} rne tnqtneer -tn- Chief. (Admin), I and CAD, Departm"ent, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. e The superintendino Enoineer, rrrigation circre No.1, Nagar Kurnoor, Mahabub Nagar District. 4. The Chief Enqineer, lrriqation Department, Nagar Kurnool, Mahabub District. Nagar

¶44

o_ 9n" 99^{to SRt SRtHAR|RFpgI} AyUrHU, Advocate topucl Two ccs to Gp FoR SERVTcES-il, High cburt foiihu'strt" o't r"rrngana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies

PSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212023

ORDER

1 $L STATE
e
o
oJ 11 JIN ?[?[ l>
L)
*
t
OE5PA.IC;

¶50

WP.No.22811 of 2021

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

G\i4
a*

M.Nagabhushanam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Nagabhushanam v. The State of Telangana

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

V.Jagan Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

N.Srinivasulu Vs The State of Telangana

Surekha Dusakant Vs State of Telangana

Manjula Rani Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Anjana Devi Mesram Vs The State of Telangana

K.Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana