Dismissed

Venkatesh, v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023WP/30103/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed five writ petitions challenging the cancellation of promotion of Assistant Divisional Engineers. The Court held that the grievance was redressed as the promotions were regularized following a Supreme Court judgment, thus the causes of action no longer survived.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions closed without costs as the promotions were regularized and the original impugned cancellation order set aside.

Venkatesh, Vs Southern Power Distribution… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.: 30094 30099 30103 30191 AND 30377 0F 2017

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30094 OF 2017:

¶8

Between:

¶9

A. Raghavendra Kumar S/o Sri A Narayana, Occ: Assistant Divisional Engineer/Electrical/Opn/Greenlands Begumpet Hyderabad TSSPDCL R/o Flat No 124, B Majestic Mansion Apartments Sharnlal Begumpet Hyderabad 5ooo6s

¶10

...PETrroNER

¶11

AND

¶12

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, (TSSPDCL), Mint Compound Gr. Hyderabad 500063 rep by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 issue a writ, or order preferably in the nature of Writ Mandamus/ and after calling for records pertaining to the impugned order vide SPOO(CGM-HRD) Rt. No.1097, dated 30-B-17 passed by the Respondent and consequently declare the impugned order of cancellation of promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unco nstitutiona I and consequently quash the same as such.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 37498 OF 2017)

¶16

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 suspend/stay the impugned order vide SPOO(CGM-HRD) Rt. No.1097, dated 30-B-17 passed by the Respondent and consequently and consequently continue to the petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents: SMT. K. UDAYA SRI

¶19

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO: 30099 OF 2017

¶21

Between:

¶22

Ch Raja Mallesham, aged 40 years S/o Sri Yelliah Occ Assistant Divisional Engineer/Electrical/OprifNarayankhed TSSPDCL Sangareddy Dt Rio Flat No 302, Plot No.3B and 39, Sai Srinivas Nilayam Samatha Nagar Kukatpally Medichal Dt 500072

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (Mint Compound Gr. Hyderabad 500063 rep by its Chairman and Managing Drrector.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, or order preferably in the nature of Writ Mandamus/ and Lifter calling for records pertaining to the impugned order vide SPOO(CGM-llRD) Rt. No.1093. dated 30-B-'1 7 passed by the Respondent and consequently declare the impugned order of cancellation of promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer as illegal. arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitulional and consequently quash the same as such.

¶28

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 37504 OF 2017)

¶29

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 suspend/stay the impugned order dated 30-8-'1 7 made in SPOO(CGM-HRD) Rt. No.1093, passed by the Respondent and consequently continue to the petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer pending disposal of the above^, rit petition.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. K. UDAYA SRI

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 30103 OF 2017

¶33

Between:

¶34

Venkatesh, aged 39 years S/o. Sri Ramachandriah Occ Assistant Divisional Engineer/Electrical/Opn/Mamidipally RR Dt TSSPDCI. lVo Flat No 409 l3harani Classic Apartments Hakimahad Colony Chinialkunta Check Post LB Nagar RR Dt 500074

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, (TSSPDCL). Mint Compound Gr. Hyderabad 500063 rep by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶38

...RESPONDENT

¶39

Petition under Articie 226 o'( 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 or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus/ and after calling for records pertaining to the impugned order vide SPOO(CGMHRD) Rt. No.1096. dated 30-B-17 passed by the Respondent and consequently declare the impugned order of cancellation of promotion of the^petitioner from the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently quash the same

¶40

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'17(WPMP. NO: 37508 OF 2017)

¶41

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 suspend/stay the impugned order vide SPOO(CGl/-HRD) Rt. No.1096, dated 30-8-'1 7 passed by the Respondent and consequently and consequently continue to the petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer^pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent: SMT. K. UDAYA SRI

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO: 30191 OF 2017:

¶45

Between:

¶46

B. Charan Singh, S/o late Romakoty, Aged about 39 years, Working as Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation, T.S.S.P.D.C.L, Kothur, R.R. District. .,.PETITIONER

¶47

AND

¶48

The Southern Power Distribution, Company of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL)., Rep,by its Chairman and Managing Director, tVlint Compound, Gr.Hyderabad500 063.

¶49

...RESPONDENTS

¶50

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 the order passed in S.P.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Rt.No.1099 dt.30.8.2017 issued by the respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and consequently declare lhe cancellation of the promotion of the writ^petitioner to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer as violation of rights guaranteed under Article^'14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the same.

¶51

---; ,7

¶52

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 37617 OF 2017)

¶53

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu'nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order passed in S.P.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Rt.No.1099 d1.30.8.2017 issued by the respondent herein with a direction to the respondent herein continue the writ petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. MALLIK

¶55

Counsel forthe Respondents: Smt. K. UDAYA SRI

¶56

WRIT PETITION NO: 30377 OF 2017:.

¶57

Between:

¶58

R. Sreedhar, aged 42 years S/o. Sri R Shankariah, Occ: Assistant Divisional Engineer/Electrical, SCADA DMS TSSPDCL GTS Colony SR Nagar Hyderabad R/o H No 11-14-24811 Plot No 50 Road No 3 New haripuri Colony Saroor Nagar Hyderabad 500035

¶59

...PETITIONER

¶60

AND

¶61

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, lvlint Compound Gr. Hyderabad 500063 rep by its Chairman and lVlanaging Director. (TSSPDCL)

¶62

...RESP.NDENT

¶63

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, or order preferably in the nature of Writ Mandamus/ and after calling for records pertaining to the impugned order vide SPOO(CGIvl-HRD) Rt. No.1 092. dated 30-8-1 7 passed by the Respondent and consequently declare the impugned order of cancellation of promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently quash the same

¶64

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 378ss OF 2017)

¶65

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to suspend the impugned order vide SPOO(CGIV-HRD) Rt. No.1092, dated 30-8-1 7 passed by the Respondent and consequently and consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶66

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA

¶67

Counsel forthe Respondents: Smt. K. UDAYA SRI

¶68

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶69

I \

¶70

\ I

¶71

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NOS. 3OO94 , 30099, 30103, 30191 AND 30377 0F 2017

¶72

COMMON ORDER:

¶73

Since the issue raised in all the writ petitions, is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶74

All the writ petitions are hled to call for records pertaining to the impugned order vide SPOO (CGM-HRD), Rt.No. 1097, dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Respondent and consequently declare the impugned ordcr of cancellation of promotion of the petitioners from the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and quash the same.

¶75

A perusal of the docket proceedings shows that this Court granted interim order in W.P.M.P. No. 37498 of 2OL7 on 06.09.2017. In the light of the interim order, the petitioners are being continued in the existing posts as on {iling of the writ petitions.

¶76

¶77

4, The respondents filed counter stating that in the light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Coutt in Civil Appeal Nos.3697-3698 of 2O18, dated 10.04.2O18 in SLP O Nos. 55605561 of 2018, the impugned order SPOO (CGM-HRD), Rt. No.1O97, dated 30.O8.2O17 has been cancelle d uide SF.O.O. (CGM-HRD), Rt.No. 313, dated O3.03.2022. Accordingly, the petitioners have been continued in promotional pc,sts and in fact, the promotions have also been reguiarized. Therefore, cause in all the writ petitions do not survive.

¶78

Recording the submission of the learned counsel for respondent, all the writ petitions are closed as no further orders need be passed as the grievance of the petiti,tners are redressed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

Accordingly, all the writ petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶80

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.

¶81

SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYII SEC OFFICER 1. Qn"^{CCto SRt K. LAKSHMTNARASTMHA,} Advocate tOpUCl ?. 9. 9nu 9n"^{CC to CCto SMT. K. UDAYA SRt V. t\rALLtK,navocate SRt,} Advocate topUbJ' ioC[c'i^"-' 4. Two CD Copies BN

To,

GJP $?r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

1 E L4it-
i<br>,') s ,}l
4 r:
t- qs .r/ru1
l; lt
iLokr
vi
tr':
J H

¶88

COMMON ORDER

¶89

WP. Nos. 30094, 30099, 30103, 30191 & 30377 0F 20',17

¶90

CLOSING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶91

,-*
x..td

Venkatesh, v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh, v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Konda Venkaiah Vs State of Telangana

Smt.S. Swarupa Rani Vs The Commissioner

B. Mogili, Vs Telangana State road Transport Corporation

B.Charan Singh Vs The Southern Power Distribution

Ch.Vijaya Vs The Deputy Director General

Ch Raja Mallesham. Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (