Disposed

B.Venkateswarlu v. The District Collector, Warangal District at Warangal.

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023WP(TR)/5732/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks a declaration regarding the petitioner's non-promotion as Deputy Tahsildar compared to his juniors due to a previously set-aside punishment. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months, adhering to the Tribunal's prior directive.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders on promotion within two months, adhering to the Tribunal's earlier order.

B.Venkateswarlu Vs The District Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH GOURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{(TR) NO: 5732 OF 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramaswamy,^{aged57 years, Occ Deputy Tahsildar} Mogullapalli Mandal, Warangal District. ...'ET'T,ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The District Collector,^{WarangalDistrict at Warangal,}

¶11

Z. tne Cfriet Commissioner^{of Land Administration, State of Telangana} Hyderabad.

¶12

3 ilie State of Telangana^{rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,} Secretariat, HYderabad.500022.

¶13

Sri.B.Sammi Reddy, S/o^{Not known, aged 57.yrs, Occ Thasildar,} Mahabhobabad Tasildhar^{Office,WaragnalDist.}

¶14

S Sri V.Veera Prakash,^{S/o Not known, aged 54 yrs, Occ Thasildar,Korivi} Tasildhar Office, Waragnal^Dist.

¶15

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiledtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to declare the action of the^{respondents in not promoting the applicant.as} beputy Tahsildar^{notionally w.e.f. 01-09-201'l on par with his juniors, by including} his n^jme in the²⁰¹ 1-12^{revisedpanel of Dy. Tahsildarsof Warangal Dist.,} prepared by the 2nd respondent vide ccc's^{Ref.No.ser.ll[1]/SPl.X2l 18312014.} 'dt '21 I 2Oi6 as highly illegal arbitrary and also contrary to the final orders of the Honbte Tribunat in b.A.Ntol+S3t2O12,^{dated 23-11-2012and consequentially, this} Honble court may be^{pleased to declare that the applicantis entitledfor notional} promotron as De[uty Tahsildar w.e.f.^{1-9-2011on par withhis juniors by including} 'hi. nur" in the 2011-12 panel of Dy. 'Tahsildars prepared vide proc. Dated. 21 .1.2016 with all^{consequential benefits including notionalpromotionas} Tahsildar.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI M.R'TAGORE} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 TO 3: AGP FORSERVICES-II} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4& 5:} --

¶18

The Court nrade the^{following:ORDER}

¶19

LNA, J w.P. (TR) No-5732 of 2OL7

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE SRi JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶22

WRIT PETITION (TRl NO. s732 OF 2Ot7

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This writ petition is liled for the following relief

¶25

"..-.-to declare the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as Deputy Tahsildar notionalllw.e.f. 01.09-2011 on par with his juniors by including his name in the year 2OIl-12 revised panel of Deputv Tahsiidat-s ol Warangal District prepared by respondent No.2 uide CCC's Ref. No. [jer. Ii(I)1 SpL.X2l18312014, dated 21.1.2016 as iliegal, arbitrary and contrary to the ilnal orrJers ,rf 1he Honble Tribunal in O.A. No. 7433/2OI2, datecl 23.17.2012 and, consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion as Deputy Ta1'rsrldar i..'.e.f. 01 .09.201 1 and further promotion of Tahsilrlil on par r.r irh his juniors.

¶26

Heard Sri N4.R- Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Asst. Covernrnent Pleader for Services-Il.

¶27

Bri.-i facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the Iretitiolrer^{\ras aplx)la1.L:il as ,Junior} Assistant on O2.O2.lgg4. On 18.0(r.1984, ?_7 .,:.tnior Assistants were appointed and thus ti're petirti,rrt; is ii-,, ir' ltronths sunior to the 27 candidates. All

¶28

..,r

¶29

¶30

LNA, J W.P- (TRl No.SZ32 of 2otz

¶31

the 27 Junior Assistants were promoted as Senior Assistants on 18.11.1988 ignoring the seniority of the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant uide Procs. No. A2/342/89, dated 22.OS.lg}g.

¶32

Petitioner submitted a representation for re_fixation of senrority and respondent No.2 issued Proceedings No. N2/s1e6l2Oo2, dated 09.02.2005 directing the respondent No. 1 to take necessary action. However, the respondent No. I did not take any action and the juniors were arlowed to continue as Senior Assistants. Seniority was f,rnalised fixing the petitioner as Senior Assistant from 22.O5.19g9 and name of the petitioner was legalry placed at Seriar No.6 in 1999 batch. The unofficial respondents and others were placed at Seriar Nos. 17 and 19 much below than the petitioner,s name in the senioritv list of 1989 batch.

¶33

The petitioner was given charge memo dated 26.02.2010 on minor allegations that he neglected his legitimate duties and called for explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanatron but the respondents without foliowing the CCA Rules, imposed

¶34

¶35

LNA, J W.P- {TR) ND.SZ32 of 20t.l

¶36

a maJor punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect uid_e proceedings dated 24.12.2OI0. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal on 26.72.2O1O and the same !r/as rejected on 26.11.2011. Challenging both the orders, the petitioner filed O.A. No.1433 of 2012 before the A.P.A.T. and the O.A. was allou.ed vide order dated 23. 11.2012 by setting aside the punishment and further directed the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy .lah silclar on par with his juniors.

¶37

That after allowing the application, the petitioner,s case was considered for promotion after completion of currency of punishment and the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar ujde progs. No. A11560/2012, dated 13.03.2013 by respondent No.1. However, the petitioner was not considered for notional promotion on par with his juniors, who have been promoted as Deputy Tahsilciar on 01.O9.2011 and now they are working as Tahsildars. The petitioner submitted representahon on 17.02.2016 to consider notional promotion on par rvith the juniors and submit[ed another represenlation on 10.03.2016 in the light of the orders of the Tribuna I

¶38

¶39

¶40

LNA, J W.P. (TRl No.5732 of 2Ol7

¶41

The petitioner had retired from service in the month of December, 2016 on attaining the age of superannuation without getting promotion as Tahsildar on par with his juniors. Basing on the report dated 07.01.2016 issued by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 uide its orders CCC's Ref. No. Ser.II(1)/ SP1.X2l l83l2Ol4, dated 21.01.2016 approved the names of 48 Depufy Tahsildars for empanelment of the category of Deputy Tahsildars of Warangal for the panel year 2O1l.12, wherein except the name of the petitioner, a1l the names of hrs juniors were included from Serial No.1 onwards and included the unofficial respondents also.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is entitled for promotion on par with his juniors, however, on account of minor punishment awarded by the respondents. The petitioner fiIed O.A. before ApAT vide O.A. No.1433 of 2Ol2 and the Tribunal vide order d,ated 23.L1.2012 set aside the punishment and also directed the respondents to consider the promotion of petitioner as Deput5r Tahsildar. Despite repeated requests and representations by the petitioner, the respondents did not comply with the order dated

¶43

)

¶44

LNA, J W.P. (TRf No.5732 of 2Ot7

¶45

\ \

¶46

I I

¶47

23.1),.2012 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1433 of 2012. The learned counsel further submits that when once the punishmen t is set aside by the Tribunal, the respondents are bound to promote the petitioner as Deputy Tahs ildar from O1,.O9.2O11 and subsequent promotion as Tahsildar in the year 2OI2 on par u,ith the juniors which the respondents failed to do.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is retired from service, the responclents may be directed to consider his promotion notionally as Deputy Tahsildar from 01.O9_2O11 and further promotion as Tahsildar from 21.O7.2O 16 on par with his juniors (who wcre earlier promoted) with all consequential benefits_

¶49

Learned Asst. Govt. pleader for Services_Il initially sought time for filing counter. However, in the light of the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1433 of 2012, dated. 23.11.2012, he fairly conceded that the representation dated 10.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner can be considered, however, reasonable time may be granted Lo respondents for passing appropriate orders.

.vre

LNA, J qr.P. (TRf N'.S7S2 of 2Ot7

¶54

ln the above factual background, rival submissions and in the light of order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1433 of 2072, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the representation dated 1O.03.2O 16 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders duly taking into consrderation of the order dated 23. ll.2OI2 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1433 of 2012 within an outer limit of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

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

¶56

SD/. MOHD.SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ..,,+'

SECTION OFFICER

1 The District Collector,^{WarangalDistrict at Warangal} 2 The Chief Commissioner^{of L-and Administration, State of Telangana} Hvderabad.

¶61

J ifre Fri"i,pat^{Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State} of Telanoana 500022.

¶62

4 One CC-to SRI M.R.TAGORE,^Advocate [OPUC] 5 iwo CCtio Cp^{FOR SERVICES-ll, High'Courtf-or the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶63

A Two CD CoPies

PSK.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911112023

ORDER

WP(TR).N o.5732 of 2017

¶70

rrl E STA rA
o
(.) 21 Nl\i ?Ii voz
{4.
+
t .,:C
Qe.snnrc'

¶71

DtsPoslNG oF THE WRIT PETITION(TR) WITHOUT COSTS.

¶72

/-r:-'--
(r)
{'trl
/)
7^J<br>

B.Venkateswarlu v. The District Collector, Warangal District at Warangal.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Venkateswarlu v. The District Collector, Warangal District at Warangal.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Sultana and 5 Others, Vs Tspsc., Rep. by Secy., Hyd., and Another

Kommu Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Telangana Municipal and Gram Panchayat Parishudhya Vs Principal Secretary to Government of Telangana State

B. Vijaya Rama Rao Vs The Superintendent

Smt. T.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Syed Gulam Mohammed Vs The Commandant