Disposed

Majji Murali v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Telangana HC12 Aug 2025WP/11130/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, serving as Senior Personnel Officer-grade employees of Singareni Collieries, challenged a company letter showing discrimination in consequential promotion to Senior Personnel Officer E-4 Grade against external candidates. The Court disposed of the petition directing the petitioners to submit a detailed representation and respondents 2 and 3 to consider their promotion grievance after

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' representation for promotion to Senior Personnel Officer E-4 Grade with retrospective seniority and monetary benefits after personal hearing.

Majji Murali Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

) 132s2 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE.OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original .turisOiction)'^{' ''}

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVi

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:11130 oF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . R/o.euarter Personnet Majji lvlurali. officer. No. S/o. MB_1 Late^ .E.^C _-tt" 2/05. Sanni Babu, aged about sipp _zr55ii i;";hip, sl'?ol' cenerat p;s;dl,priii'.vii""d;,53 years, ManaoerOcc. STPP,Senior lVlardat, lVlancheriat District. pin. SO+ 2;6.'"'"'"' Jaipur

¶9

Devara Sravan kumar. S/o D. ^[ajam aged about 43 years, Occ. Senior Personnet officer. E.c tto odg'sii+,",iI"J"[lrpitrt and R.K. oCp. Mandarnarri Area. nro . .Qyartei_ M.^'ii:22, hir; in;,ui. ,.a ;;.", Ramakristmapur, Ma ncheriat oisiriJi pin.to+"s6i.

¶10

3 lVlandala Srinivas. S/o tate^Kanakaiah, aged about 39 years, Occ. Senior Personner officer- E C r'ro.zosg+ai, SicL"ilrlii'ir",i.pitar, Kothagudem, Rl/o. chouhan Nrivas. ko*rig-;;,,'iiilioillr.i Kothasudem District,

¶11

Eiili,r";,??i,

¶12

4 Sllf i3,x,.$fl lll"_#i;,.j.t,"*'":,5?33litl,i;f,'8133f; H,,"?1,'3ii3;o# R/o.e. No. c-106, RK-8 cbtonv, siirrrprr,'ril"hiilli"r oi.tri"t, pin. s04 303

¶13

5 Signu Srinivas, S/o, Late _^{Venkatqlqh,aged about 51 years,} Occ. Senior

¶14

Personnel officer. Manuorrru.Area, nyo. O."rrfo. c:6i, p.v.,C"rorvlrirhil"f,i#, Area, tVta n u g u ru, B h ad rai ri xotri! ude miiiin:.i pjl. do z r z s

¶15

6 Bf#fl #,{,{il1'[:}:'fi^{ar,ffi$,.fl R:i,.,i,r83fi :ffi ,i8l,fr:i.",ff} !!;l

¶16

7 Nuthala Sugnam, S/o. Late N Ch^an_draiah, aged about 54 years, Occ. Senior Personnel Officer. F c No. .tz.:s02, C"il"ii"J bl"plrtrn"nt, yeflandu Area, Bhadradri Kothagudem oiitrict, pin. sbiidi^"'"' """

¶17

ifl::iif^{s''r;'{!,16?HBtffi B::J#[,fr} ali;&?i;,i",t8iE:[,T:8B 232, Babucarnp, Kothasuderr,, ehrdr;ii"i;t]I!L'iJJI.oirtri.t, pin. 507 101

¶18

AND

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

The Sinqareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by lts Chairman and Managing Director, Sinsareni Bhavan, n5J rjirG,-rivJJI;ird."- "'

¶21

2 The Director (pA and W), Singareri Collieries Company f_t0., ISCCI_), Kothagudem, Bhadradri Koti.ragud6m bistrici"'-"'" "'

¶22

3 The General Manager^{(Personnel), RC- lR and PM, Singareni.. CollieriesI} c".pr"v LtO.^{wetfire Wing,-Corpdiate PersonnelDepart'nent Kothagudem'} Bhadradii Kothagudem^District.

¶23

4 TheGenerallVlanager,(Personnel)EECell,.singareniCollieriesCompanyiiol.^{-wJirt.Wids,' boiporat"' PersonnelDiepartment' Kothagudem'} Bhadradri Kothagudem^District,

¶24

...RESPONOENTS

¶25

Petition under Artrcte^{226 of lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue a Wrrt' order^{or direction, more particularlyonein the nature of} writ of Mandamus,^{declaringthe action of the Respondentsin issuanceof letter,} vide Ref. No.GRP/PERl)t22t1262-65,^{dated 18.06.2020, showing discrimination} towardSthepetitionersalongWithexternalcandidatesoftheRespondent CompanyonconSeqUentialpromotionForthepostofSeniorPersonnelofficerof E-4GradeinRespondentCompany,asillegal,arbitrary,contrarytotherulesand regulations of the^{Respondent-company and unconstitutional,by holding that the} petitioners are eligible for the post of senior Personnel^{officerof E-4 Grade with} retrospective effect^{in Respondent Company along with monitory benefit}

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶27

Petition under section^{151 cPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Courtmaybe pleasedto} suspend the letter^{vide Ref. No CRP/PERtct2zt1262-69,dated 18,06.2020,} pending the disposal of the^{above Writ Petition'}

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2O2O

¶29

Petition under Section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto} direct the Respondents^{to consider the cases of the, petitioners for the post of} Senior Personnel^{officerof E-4 Grade in Respondentcompanyon regular' or on} ad-hoc basis,^{pending the disposalof the above Writ Petition'}

¶30

IA NO: 3 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

Petition under section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to permit and receive the documents i. Letter No. cRp/per cr2211267 dated 18-06-2020 2. Letter No. cRp/per ct22t126\ dated 18-06-2020 3. Letter No. cRP/Per cl1411263 dated 18-06-2020 4 Letter Nor ct14li264 dated 18-06-2020 5. Letter No. cRP/Per c122t1269 dated 18-06-2020 6. Letter No. cRp/per c12211265 dated 18-06-2020 7. Letter No. cRp/per ct22li266 dated 18-06-2020 B. Letter No. cRP/Per cl1411263 dated 18-06-2020 9. copy order in wpNo.6633 of 2020 dt 05-05-2020.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt p.SRl HARSHA REDDy, SC FOR SCCL The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

HON,BLE MRS.^{JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶36

WRIT PETITION^{No.11 13O of 2O2O}

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

Heard Sri Ch.^{Venkat Raman, learned counsel} behalf of the^{petitioners and Sri' P' Sri} appearlng^on Harsha ReddY, learned Standing^{Counsel for Singareni} Collieries Company^{Ltd, appearing onbehalf ofthe} respondents¹ to^4.

¶39

The^{petitionersfiled the writ petitionseeking the} following relief^:

¶40

"to issuer a Writ, order^{or direction, more particula rly one} in the nature^{of Writ of Mandamus,declaringthe action} of the tlespondents^{in issuance of letter, vide Ref'No'} cRP/PER/Cl22/t262-69,^{dated 18.06.2020,showing} discrimlrration towards^{the petitioners along with external} candidates of^{the RespondentCompanyon consequential} promoti,ln for the^post of^{Senior Personneloffice'ofE-4} Grade n Respondent^{CompanY,as illegal, arbitrary'} contrary to the^{rules and regulations of the respondent-} Company and^{unconstitutional, by holding that the} petitioners are eligible for^{the post of SeniorPr:rsonnel} Officer of E'4 Grade^{with retrospectiveeffectin} Respondent Company^{along with monitory benefit and} pass st.lch other and further^{order or orders as this} Hon'ble Court may deem^{fitahd proper inthe} circu msta nces of^{the case".}

¶41

¶42

SN, .I wP I 30 2020

¶43

It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarery covered by the order of this court dated 18.07.2025 passed in W.p. No.1357 of 2020, hence, the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.07.2025 passed in W.p. No.1357 of 2025.

¶44

4, The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶45

Takinqintoconsidera tion:

¶46

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶47

(b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,

SN. J wP lll.i0¹⁰²⁰

I I

The writ^{petition is disposed of directing the} petitioners to put forth the^{grievancesofthe} petitioners as^put forth^{in the present writ petition} by way of a detailed^{representationaddressed to the} respondents herein^{duly incorporating the contents} of the^{petitioners'earlier representationsdated} Og.LL.zO1-7 and^{23.O4.2019within} .a^{period of two} (O2) weeks from the date^{of receiptof a copy of this} order and upon the respondent^{Nos'2 and3} receiving the said representation^{of the petitioners} within a^period of six^{(6) weeks thereafterthe} respondent Nos.² and^{3 are directed to consider the} grievance of the^{petitioners pertainingtothe} petitioners' promotion to Senior^{PersonnelOfficerof} E-4 Grade in Respondent^Companywith retrospective seniority^{and othermonetarybenefits} in accordance to law,^{in conformity with principlesof} natural^justice by^{providingan opportunityof} personal hearing to the^{petitioners andpass} appropriate orders^{decidingthe subject issue and}

¶53

¶54

SN. J wP l]0 2020

¶55

duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no order as to cost. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶56

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶57

. JAWAHAR RE TANT R R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

'1 . The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶60

The Director (PA and W), Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,^(SCCL), Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶61

The General Manager (Personnel), RC, lR and PIr/, Singareni^Collieries Company Ltd., Welfare Wing, Corporate Personnel Department, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶62

The General Manager, (Personnel) EE Cell, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Welfare Wing, Corporate Personnel Department, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District,

¶63

One CC to SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL IOPUC]

¶65

7 Two CD Copies BSR trv PVL

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210812025

ORDER

1 PT S-TArF
.
J
._t 210t1 tm a
t-
DES

¶72

WP.No.11130 of 2020

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶74

WITHOUT COSTS

¶75

Re ,\7 !C \t r--

Majji Murali v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majji Murali v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Abdul Qaiyum Vs The State of Telangana

Sri JakkamVeeraiah Vs Government of India and another, Ministry of Labour And employment

G. Prasad Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Ch.Bhoodamma Vs The State of Telangana

M. Chakrapani Vs The state of telangana

K.Geetanjali Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others