Rudrala Suresh Kumar v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 2 Others

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024WP/15669/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC directed the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to Assistant Divisional Engineer strictly as per G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, disregarding the ground of pending criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 within eight weeks.

Rudrala Suresh Kumar Vs Southern Power… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAYOF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{PULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO :15669 OF^2O22

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rudrala Suresh Kumar, S/o. Narsimha,^{Aged about 39 years, presently workingas} Assistant Engineer, o/o Divisional Engineer/Lines/Rajendranagar,^{KattedanLines} TSSPDCL, R/o.Hyderabad.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Southern Po\iver Distribution Company^{of Telangana Limited and 2 Others,}

¶12

. Represented by its Chairman and^{Mahaging Director, MintCompound,} Hyderabad.

¶13

The Chairman and Managing^{Director, Soutlrcrn Power Distribution Company} of Telangana Ltd., Mint Compoundl^Hyderabad.

¶14

The Chief General Manager^{(HRD), Southern Power Diskibution Companyof} Telangana Ltd. Corporate Office,^{Mi4t Compound, Hyderabad.}

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

petition Under Article 226 of the Constituiion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{Direclion moreparticularly one in} the nature of writ of Mandamus^{by declaringthe action of the Respordents in} overlooking and thereby denying^{Petitionersclaim for prornotionto the post of} Assistant Divisional Engineer^{(Electrical)on the groundof pendencyof c.c. No.} 90 of 2015^pending before the^{court of I Additbnal specialJudge For SPEand} ACB Cases, Hyderabad, as^{being arbiirary, illegal, erroneous,unjust andin} violation of Articles^'14 and^'16 of^{the Constitution of lndia and consequently} declare that the Petitioner is^{entitled to have his claim considered and be} promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer^{(Electrical)on the basis of seniority}

¶17

assigned to him with benefits incidental^{and ancillary thereto without reference to} the criminal^{proceedings pending in C.C. No. 90 of 2015 before the Court ofI} Additional special Judge For SPE and^{ACB Cases, Hyderabadin relationto an} alleged incident dating back to^{19-11-2013 in the interest of justice.} LA.NO:1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition Under section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High court maybe pleasedto} direct the Respondents to^{consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the} post of Assistant Divisional Engineer^(Electrical) without^{reference to the criminal} proceedings pending in c.c.No.90 ol 2015 on the^{file of the court of I Additional} Special Judge For SPE & ACB^{Cases, Hyderabad in relation to an alleged} incident dating back to^{19-1 1-201 3.}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{V.RAVICHANDRAN}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : SMT^K.UDAYASRI

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

I I

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PEfITION No.15669 of 2o22

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is hled seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrica-t) without reference to the crimina.l proceedings pending in C.C.No.9O of 2015 on tJ'e hle of the I Additional Special Judge's Court for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad in relation to alleged incident dating back to 19. 1 1.2013.

¶26

Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for tlle petitioner and Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 3. It has been contended by the leamed counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the respondent-Company and he is fully eligible and qualilred to be promoted to the^post of Assistant Divisional Engineer. However, the respondents are not considering his case for promotion to the post of Assistant.Divisional Engineer (Electrical) on the ground that a criminal case in C.C.No.9O of 20f 5 on the frle of the I Additional Special Judge's Court for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad is pending against him. Learned counsel further contended tttat as per G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, the competent authorit5r must consider the cases of employees against whom disciplinar5z proceedings/criminal proceedings are pending and pass appropriate orders as to wtrether they are eligible for promotion. But, in the present case, the r€spondents are not

¶27

¶28

¶29

considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer (Electrical) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. It is further contended that in similar circumstances, this Court has disposed of WP.No.4928 of 2O2l vide order dated O2.03.2021. 'Hence, the learned counsel prays this Court to pass similar order in the present case also.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also does not dispute t].e same-

¶31

In view of the same, this Writ Pelition is also disposed of in terms of aJoresaid order directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisiona-l Engineer (Electrical) strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.19C9 arrd pass appropriate orpers within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous

¶32

petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

/ffRUE COPY//

¶34

SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTY ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR c-

@,'

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Chairman and Managing Director,^{Southern Povrrer Distribution Company} of Telangana Limited, Mint Compound,^Hyderabad.

¶39

2 The Cha'irman and Managing^{Director, Southern Power Distribution Company} of Telangana Ltd., Mint Compound,^Hyderabad.

¶40

The Chi6f General Manager^{(HRD), Sbuthern Power Distribution Companyof} Telangana Ltd. Corporate Office,^{Mint Co1p9y1-d-' Hyderabad.}

¶41

One CC to Sri V.Ravichandran,^Advocate [oPUC]

¶42

¶43

One CC to Smt K.Udaya Sri, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

¶45

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310312024

THE S 14
oo
.L
fr)
?0 fiAn M
.r.C
I i.r r..^, .^*
--:::,.- . --

ORDER

WP.No.15669 ot 2022

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Rudrala Suresh Kumar v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudrala Suresh Kumar v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 2 Others

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

K.v.Haripriya Vs The District Educational Officer

C.Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin Vs The Osmania University

B.Dhanamma Vs The Principal Secretary to the State of Telangana

K.Vasudeva Rao Vs The State of Telangana

D. Mary Shobha Rani Vs The State of Telangana