Disposed

Lingathoti Dayakar v. The State of Telanagana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023WP/26777/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought a direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion to E-7 Grade based on his 2020 promotion date. The Court found the representation pending over a year and directed the authorities to consider it within four weeks with a fair opportunity of hearing before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders within four weeks after providing fair opportunity of hearing.

Lingathoti Dayakar Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF ruOVEruIAEN TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26777 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Lingathoti Dayakar, S/o. David, aged about 54 years, Occ SuperintendenUSurvey Officer, EC No 0988761 , NC- 065, Writer Basthi, Kothagudem, Dist Bhadradri- Kothagudem Telangana- 5071 01.

¶10

...PETtTIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Chief Secretary, Telangana State Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Principal Secretary to Govemment, Social Welfare Department, Telangana.State Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. ,, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Director (P, A and W), Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶16

5 The General Manager, (Personnel), RC, lR and PM, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶17

6 The General Manager, (Personnel), EE, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶18

The General.Manager, Ramagundam- I Area, Sirgareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Ramagundam, Karimnagar Distract.

¶19

The Union of lndia, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

¶20

...RESPONOENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondents, in changing the seniority of the petitioner without issuing any notice or opportunity on the ground that the petitioner belongs to the State of Andhra Pradesh, without taking into consideration of the seniority of the petitioner for his due date of promotion as

¶22

01 .O4.2020, while^{givingpromotionto him on 09.1O.2021} '^{as illegal, improper,} arbitrary, unjust, contrary to^{law, contrary to orders issued in G O Ms No' 5,} sociat welfare^(sw.RoR.l) Department,^{dated 14.o2.2003, violativeof principles} of natural^justice, violative^{of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitutionof lndia,} u ncon Stitutiona I and^{consequently directthe respondents3 to 8 to consider the} case of the^{petitionerfor promotion to the cadreof E-7 Grade,by takinginto} consideration the date of^{promotion of the petitioner in E-6 Grade, as on} 01 .O4.2020, as^per the^{orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 5' SocialWelfare} (SW.ROR.l) Department, daled 14.2.2003,^{with all consequential benefits'}

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under section^'t 51^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition,the High cou( may be pleasedto} forthwith direct the respondents^{3 to 8, to consider the case of the petitioner for} promotion in the cadre of E-7 Grade,^{by taking into consideration the date of} promotion of the petitioner in E-6^{Grade, as on 01 .04.2020, as per the orders} issued in G.O. lvls. No.5,^{Socialwelfare(sw.RoR.l)Department,dated} 14.2.2OO3,^{pending disposalof the above writpetition.}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SR! CH. VENKAT RAMAN}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION}

¶27

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2:GP FOR SOCIALWELFARE}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.3 to 7: SRIP. SRI HARSHAREDDY'SCFOR} SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY^LIMITED

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.8: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR'} DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL^{OF INDIA}

¶30

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶31

I t

¶32

t I

¶33

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.26777 of 2O23

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents No.3 to 8 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of E-7 Grade, by taking into consideration the date of promotion of the petitioner in E-6 Grade, as on Ol.O4.2O2O as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.S, Social Welfare (SW.ROR.I) Department dated 14.02.2003 with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders.

¶37

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made a representation dated 21.11.2022 to the respondents with regard to his seniority and promotion and he is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the said representation in accordance with law.

¶38

Mr.P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing for respondents No.3 to 7, is also heard.

¶39

Having regard to the fact that the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondents for more

-<-:-.Tl!: '::1 \

I ,l

PMD.J W.P No-26777^{of 2021}

¶44

¶45

than a year,^{th is Court deems itfrt and Properto directthe} respondents^{lo consider the same and pass appropriateorders} thereon within^{a periodof four (04) weeks'The respondents are} further directed^{to give fair opportunity of hearingto the petitioner} and shall^{take into considerationany decisionscited by him before} passing anY order.

¶46

With the above^{directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of at} the admission^{stage. There shall be no orderas to costs'}

¶47

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any pending'shall also stand} closed.

¶48

SD/. K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASSISTAqAEGISTRAR //TRUE coPY/' oFFlcER "ecHBr'r

¶49

To, 1. The Chief^{Secretary, TelanganaStateSecretariat' The State of Telangana'} Saifabad, HYderabad

¶50

z. it."p,incipil^{Secretary to Government'. SocialWelfare Department'} - t;Lil;ilState Secr6tariat, Saifabad,tlvderabad' 3. il;'i'# it".;; ;;;^tir;;s d -oi iector' rn1e sl nsa reni co|Iieries companv

¶51

Ltd . Sinqareni Bhavan, Red Hills' Hyderabao'

¶52

4 iH;';i;;""i;;iP,^{A & w)' iiig"iJi'id"tti"'les co Ltd''Kothasudem'} Khammam District.

¶53

Khammam District.

¶54

1. The General^{Manager, (Personnel)'RC' lR and PM Sinoareni Collieries} company Ltd^{corporaie'o#i;;'6ils!i'+i Bhavan' Red Hitts'Hvderabad'}

¶55

A rhe ceneral Manaqer, iF;;ffiii'^{tE' Sing""niCollieries CompanyLtd' '}

¶56

Koinagudem, Bhadiadri Kothaoudem [Jrslncl'

¶57

7 The General Manager,^{i;"mil";d-#-lArea' Singareni Collieries Company} Ltd . Ramagundam,^{Karimnagar ulstrlcl'}

¶58

A The LJnion of lndia, n"d'ii'itltr-t"tify'.Ministry^{of Personneland Public}

¶59

Grievances, Central Secretariat' New uelnl'

¶60

l.FIi::,i:"'5i".t.ig[rumx$ili$.8','fi^{i'f ,8^it?Jn""'nrorthestate} of Telangana. [OUT]

¶61

Two CD^CoPies BN GJP I.IA

HIGH COURT

DATED:06 t11t2023

ORDER

WP.No.26ttt of 2023

1 t{E SrAre
J ,
J( J O
o ? B liil
.+
* oEs
-.jal

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Lingathoti Dayakar v. The State of Telanagana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingathoti Dayakar v. The State of Telanagana

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

W. Rahul Vs Sri Anjani Kumar, IPS

M/s Surabhi Security Services Vs P Ravinder

Dr. Tandra Praneeth Vs Sri. Gadala Srinivasa Rao

Sri a Seenaiah Vs The State of Telangana

B.Ramesh Vs The Telangana State Power Generation of Company Limited (Tsgenco)

K.Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana