Disposed

P. Sreekanth v. Collector and District Magistrate

Telangana HC22 Sept 2023WP/459/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-promotion due to Censure punishment, claiming constitutional violations. The court held the punishment expired after one year, valid only barring promotion during that period. The High Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's promotion claim with juniors and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's claim for promotion on par with juniors and pass appropriate orders within two months.

P. Sreekanth Vs Collector and District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

wRlT PETITTON NO.459 0F 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Sreekanth, S/o. Late Poshetty, Aged 31 years, Sr. Assistant, Tahsil Office, Nanapet, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District, Telangana

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Collector and District tvlagistrate, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶12

2 Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the^petitioner for^promotion to the^post of Deputy Tahsildar on the ground of imposing the punishment of Censure by^proceedings Lr. No. A31179912012, Dated 14.09.201 5 issued by the first respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unconstitutional violating article 14,^'l6 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith consider and promote the^petitioner as Deputy Tahsildarⁱⁿ the existing vacancies as per the seniority with all consequential benefits.

¶16

I.A. N O: 10 F 2017^(WPMP .No: 50 8 0F 2017

¶17

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 ihe respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar without referring to proceedings issued in Lr. No. 431179912012, Dated 14.09.2015 by the first respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. NARENDAR REP. SRI P. V. KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES-Il

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶21

Writ Petition No.459 of 2OLz

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶24

"lo issue Wit, order or directiort preferablg Writ of Mandamus, declaing the actiort of the respondents in nol consideing the case of the petitiorte,r for promotion to the^post of Deputg Tahsildar on the ground of tmposing the punishment of Censure by proceedingls Lr.No.A3/ 1799/ 2012, Dated 14.09.2015, issued bg tle. first respondettt os orbitrary, itlegal, discimitlatory, un<:ottstitutio\ol,^piolatiq articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Conslituttot of hrdia ard i-ssue consequential directions directitlg tlrc respondents to fortfuaith^{considerond prontote.tltepelilioneras DePuttl} Tahsildar in the eistirtg uacancies es per llte sedoity tuith all consequential benefits and pnss such other Order^or Orders.

¶25

Heard Sri G.Narendar, learned counsel

¶26

representing Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Gowernment Pleader for Service - II for respondents.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant^on 07.O1.2OO7 on compassionate grourrd. Subsequent'ly,^he got promotion to the post of Senior Assistant^on O 1.04.201 1. While dipposing service of Senior^Assistant,

¶28

¶29

the resp,lndgnl authorities initiat€ d tlepaltmental proceeding r against him and imposed millor pr-lrristrmeht o[ Censure orr 14.09.2O 15. Basing on the said punlshmerrt respondents have not granted promotion to the' pr:titioner to the p(,st of Deputy Tahsildar, though the sard punishmen t does not come in the way of e:<tr:ncling the benefit of rromotion. The action of resooridents is clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the ConstitutiorL of India.

¶30

4 ' Learned Assistant Government Plea'ler for Services-il basing upon the instructions subrnjts that as the minor punishment of Censure imposcd b1' r'esltondeot No.1 on 14.1!).2015 is valid only for aperiod of o:le.year, as soon as alter expiry of said punishmr:nt, :e titioner is entitled for promotion to the post of f)eputy Tahsiiciar, basing uporr availability of the vacancies.

¶31

l{zLving considered ttre rival sr-rbmi:;s,ons made by respecti re parties, after going throtLgh thr: rnaterial available or r record, it clearly revealed that u,h ile tlre petitioner c ischarging his service as [ienio;- Assistant, respondent \o.1 intposed minor punishm('nt ol Clenr;ure or-l

¶32

¶33

¶34

14.O9.2015, but this punishment was barring his

¶35

promotion as Deputy Tahsildar.

¶36

Horvever, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll fairly submits that as soon as after expiry of period of one year of punishment, petitioner is entitled for the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, basing on the availability of vacancies.

¶37

7 . In view of the same, respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar on par with his juniors and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

B. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

No costs.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous petitions, i[ any, shall

¶41

stand closed.

¶42

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT-REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (D SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

The Collector and District Magistrate, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶45

The Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶46

The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶47

One CC to SRI P. V. KRISHNAIAH, Advocate {OPUCI

¶48

Two CCs to GP for Services-ll. High Court for the State of Telangana^at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

Two CD Copies

IVP GJP

HIG H COURT

DA'fED::i|210912023

't
I L
c
j,,
a 9
!i!
,s
c)
/r
uo $ .o
<br><br>.q
* ^'a
_ c H ORDER

¶54

WP.No.459 oi 20i7

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE'UVRIT PIETITION WITHOIJT COSTS

¶56

q
n1A-
0#
-^

P. Sreekanth v. Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Sreekanth v. Collector and District Magistrate

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

Bantu Venkat Ramulu Vs The Tahasildar, Yalal Mandal, Yalal, Rangareddy District.

G.V.B.S. Murthy Vs State of A.P.

P.Y.Ramachandram Vs Sri M. Satyanarayana Reddy

Syed Ali, Vs Sri Prasada Rao

Pidugu Sudhakar Vs The State of Telanagana

T. Balaiah, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation