Dismissed

K.Dayakar v. Union of India Represented by its General Manager

Telangana HC23 Nov 2023WP/26472/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of CAT order dismissing his plea for promotion to Junior Engineer and pay fixation. Court held signature criteria not met as he remained Grade-III and service period during removal and reinstatement was not worked, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications remain closed.

K.Dayakar Vs Union of India Represented by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26472 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Dayakar, S/o Sri Venkatesham, aged about 51 years Occ Technician, Grade-lll Electric Loco Shed, S.C.Railway, Kazipel r/oH.No. 1-1-60, Prashanth Nagar Near Tejaswi School, Post Kazipet Warangal 506004

¶9

...PET]TIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union of lndia Represented by its General lvlanager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 500071

¶12

The Chief Electrical Loco Engineer South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 500071

¶13

The Divisional Railway Manager Personnel Branch, South Central Railway 4th Floor, Sanchalan Bhavan Secunderabad 500071

¶14

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari or appropriate writ (i) quash the order dated 22.04.20'14 in R.A.No. O2O|OOOO2|2O14 in O.A. No.72 of 2012 on the file of Central^{Administrative} Tribunal, Hyderabad (ii) and consequently direct the respondents^{to fix the scale} of pay of the petitioner by taking into consideration the service^{from 21.09.2000 to} 23.03.2011 and also^{grant promotion} to the^post of T ll-l and Tl-^Senior Technician/Jvlaster Crafts Man and Junior Engineer on^par with his^immediate juniors ( lll)

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 14444 OF 20171

¶18

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take up out of turn final hearing of the WP. No.26472 OF 2014

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 33109 OF 2014)

¶20

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 to direct 2nd Respondent to consider the case of petitioner for Notional promotions to Tech. Grade I and Senior Technician/Master Crafts Man since petitioner is fully exonerated in departmental charges

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. VIDYASAGAR SENIOR COUNSEL REP Smt. K. UDAYA SRI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

l:!

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION N0.26472 0F 20t4

¶31

ORDER: (Per Hon'bLe Si Justice Abhinand Kumar Slutuili)

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dt.22.O4.2O14 passed by the Centra,l Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short "the Tribunal") in R.A. No.020/00002/2014 in O.A. No.72 of 2Ot2.

¶33

Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

It has been contended by the petitioner that while he was working as a Technician Grade-III, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him atlegirrg that he has accepted money from the Gang men ald after conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority has removed him from the service vide order dt.21.0g.2000. Later, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed and the

¶35

lir

¶36

2 AKS,J & RRN,J WP No.26472 of 2014

¶37

Revisional Authority was^pleased to^enhance the^{punishment of} removal from service to that of dismissal from^servicevide proceedings dt. 10.05.200 1.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that on the very same set of allegations, a criminal^{case was also} lodged against the petitioner i.e. C.C. No.4 of 2000 on^{the frle of} Special Judge for CBI cases and the Special Judge for^{CBI cases} was pleased to convict the petitioner vide^judgment dt.30.0l.2004 and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous^imprisonment for two years besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,0O0/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.386 of 2OO4 before this Court and this Court was pleased to allow the Criminal Appeal vide^judgment dt. 11.06.2010 and acquitted the petitioner of the said criminal charge. Later, after acquittal by this Court in Crirninal Appeal, the respondents have reinstated the petitioner into service^{as a} Technical Assistant Grade-III on 24.O3.2O1 I vide proceedings dt.23.17.2}10 and the respondents have also regularized his services from the date of removal till date of acquittal.

¶39

¶40

AKS,J & RRN,J WP No.76472 of 2014

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondents have issued a rimited recruitment notifrcation dt. 15.07.201 r for 25o/o of the vaca,cies for the post of Junior Engineer and a junior to the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in pursuance to the said notifrcation.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that when the petitioner was reinstated into service consequent upon his acquittal in a criminal case, he was reinstated into service, and the period of absence from the date of removal t l reinstatement was regulari zed, in all fairness, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer on p€rr with his junior. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering his case for the post of Junior Engineer on par with his junior, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.72 of 2OL2 and the Tribuna-l dismissed the O.A. vide orders d,t.OS.12.2O t3 without appreciating any ofthe contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶43

¶44

,,;:.

¶45

4 AKS,J & RRN,J wP No.26472 of 2014

¶46

l,earned counsel for^{the petitioner has further contended} that the^{petitioner has hledreview petition i'e'R'A'} No.020/0000212O14^{in O.A. No.72 of 2Ol2 and the Tribunal} dismissed the^{review on 22.4.2014.Aggrievedby the same, the} present Writ Petition^{has been frled.}

¶47

Learned Counsel^{for the petitioner has further contended} that when the^{services of the petitioner were regularizedi'e' from} the date of removal^{till reinstatement, the respondents oughtto} have extended^{incrementsand pay fixation notionally andalso} ought to have^{consideredhis case for promotionto the post of} Junior Engineer on^{par with his junior' Therefore, appropriate} orders be^passed in^{the Writ Petition by setting aside the order} passed by the Tribunal in^{R.A. No.020/00O0212O14inO'A'} No.72 of 2Ol2^{dt. 22.4.2014 and allow the Writ Petition'}

¶48

g. This Court having^{considered the submissions madeby the} learned counsel^{for the petitioner,is of the considered view that} as per the notihcation^{issuedfor promotion to the post of Junior} Engineer, the eligibility^{criteria isthat one must be Senior} Technician. Admittedly, the^{petitioner was never promotedas}

¶49

AKS,J & RRN,J WP No.26472 of 2014

¶50

¶51

Senior Technician. When the petitioner is not a Senior Technician, the question of considering his case for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer in pursuance to the notihcation dt. 15.07.201 1 would not arise. As admittedly, the petitioner has not worked from the date of removal till reinstatement, the question of granting increments and extending pay fixation would not arise. Therefore, the Tribunal was justifred in dismissing the O.A, as such, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶54

¶55

To,

¶56

SDI K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶57

One CC to Smt. K. UDAYA SRI ,Advocate IOPUCI 2. ONE CC tO SRI. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICTOR GENERAL OF rNDtAloPUCl

¶58

Two CD Copies BM GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311112023

ORDER

o
19,9 STATE
q
o.t
foo [ \ Jl'-x ?u<br>+
,:o
I oEl.;?l-5 CT

¶64

WP.No.26472 ol 2014

¶65

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

q,l'b
c
€

K.Dayakar v. Union of India Represented by its General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Dayakar v. Union of India Represented by its General Manager

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 D.S. Rajendernath

K.Dhanunjaya Reddy, Hyd Vs Rajiv Udyogasri Society, Hyd and Another

Syed Ameeruddin Vs Mohammed Rasheed Ahmed

A.V.V.S.N. Murthy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Devasoth Sikinder Vs State of Telangana

Uttam Kumar Das Vs Union of India,Scy,H.R.D,New Delhi,and 6