Disposed

Yadlapati Venkateswara Rao v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Telangana HC18 Jul 2025WP/1357/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Twenty Senior Under Managers of Singareni Collieries sought promotion to E-3/E-4 grades with retrospective seniority under a 2013 Board resolution. The court disposed of the writ petition directing them to file a detailed representation and the respondents to consider it in accordance with law after personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to submit detailed representation within two weeks; respondents 2 and 3 to consider promotion grievance in accordance with law with opportunity of personal hearing within six weeks; no ord

Yadlapati Venkateswara Rao Vs The Singareni… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

|³²⁵²¹

/ I I f

I I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ,/

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NAND'

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1357 oF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

Yadlapati Venkateswara Rao, Sr,o. papa Rao aged about I l

¶10

4071867, O/o. GKOC-KGII| Area, R/c. , Quafter^Nc.BC 130,Line N0.5, t{/riter" Basthi, Kothaqudem. BhadraJri Kothagudem District.

¶11

Daravathu Madhusudan Ra6 S/o Daragaiah, aged about 50 yeas, O^cc: ^Dy.Senior^{under l4afrger,l<oc,ief faio,iar'ea, ftil]'} 4055.073, R/o e.No..l.iB-i l t,SCCL Cotony, r"iuiuprlfi poit," Bhadradri Kothagudem Diskict. I

¶12

Gummdi Venkateswara Rao S/o Ramaiah. aged about 50 years, 9!!,^{S.q,ot unqqr Ma!?gqtE4, r,VK_sirciin;Korhagudem} Area, EC No.1233I8, R/o e.No./,-35, Rudraour.Chunthuoa v Mandat, Kothagudem,, Bhadradri Kothagudem biiiri.l^--- '

¶13

Moha!'nmed Skaj Uddin S/o Shaill yacoob Aji, aEed about 47 years, Occ: S^enio{ under Manager,. E4, OC-3, RG-II Ar-ea, EC No. 2713825, R/o. NC-14, 8 Inctine C-otony, Kamanpul. peddapally Oiskict

¶14

Pammi Srinivasas Rao,. S/o. Jagannadham Rao,aged about 51. years. Occ:'senior under lyanager E3 , f .C. ru6. 0443672,PVK 5 Inctjne, KGM Area, R/0. Quarter No. NC-70, Rudrapur Village, Chuncupalti f4andal, Kothagudem Post, Bhadr;dri KothaqudJm District.' t

¶15

Vasala. Laxminarayana, S/o. Krishna Srrvamy, aged about 52^years, Occ: Seniorunder Manager, E.C. No.r907313,

¶16

i RKP IA Incliner, Mandamarri R/o.e.tJo.C_74,IiI,Zone, I Opp Carmel School,Katyanikhant, tvtancherial Diatrict.

¶17

I 7. Kothapalli Ravinder, S/o. Rajatatr, aged about 52 years, Occ: Senior Under Manager E4, E.C. No. 2-657552, RK 7 Inctine, SRp Area R/0.Q. I'lc. C-80, Teachers Colon), CCC, Naspur,Ma'ncherial District

¶18

B. lvlittapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/0. Sree Rama lyufthy, aged about 52 years, Occ: Senjor unCer Flanager RKNT incline, SRP i',r'ea, R/o. Q. No. C-96, RK 5 Colony,Naspur, Mancherial District.

¶19

Karrivula Vasudevan, iSl0. Rajam,,aged about 56 years, Occ: Senior under Mana,ler,RK 7 incline, Srirampur Area, E.C. No. 25.+1939 , Rlo C-54, Naspur Colony, CCC Town ship, t4ancherlal District.

¶20

10 lvleenugU Ellaiah S/o_ p.ajam, aged about 53 years, Occ: Slenior undei Manager, RK,5 incline, SRp Area, E.C. No. 2003012, R/o. Q. No. 38, Naspur Cotony, CCC Toi,n shio, lvlancherial District.

¶21

I l..Kondam Mall Reddy I

¶22

,^{;;ffijr;.:#il1;x*$i1i,:ffs} etrlnlri.i bir"tli.i' tr)' t / btr'/es t R/o c-8 I' Naspur,^:t#::1,

¶23

/ 12. Ivloola Sampath Reddv Years, occ: sunio,. s";'11? Iltrpathi^ReddvAged about 45 av.snp nrea, ii ilfltBtg1ff llRiitlll,o*,,., NasPUr Colony, CCC Town ,hi;, Mili,;;;;;;;;"1

¶24

i3. Merugu Rama Krishne ott'-dt'it.. u^i"ini'?3-" l1',-''h'^{Ased about} 41 ' e*'ooiisz-dal;,nli,Xligi-5il#il;"'U&llJii,iZ, Ramavaram Kothaouoe c.,...0p",, x.ii."s,;r#;!i,,.l,i,9r,?l?rl!i,11;m Diskict.

¶25

14 larup^aka]a^{Ravi S/o Mysaiah,} aged about 53 years. occ: senior Under Maanger, otpr, nclir-_ ,-",, E.C.No. 0829932, R/o

¶26

/^{8 incline cotony, 1,'1uu.,)94',sector-3' venkataraopalri,} xarimnagai;^{'r' ^'ot r'enkat€swara Temple,}

¶27

¶28

1. Kota Rarnesh S/o Ravan occ: senior gn6n, 6r;r.rll_lu, lged^{about 49 y<ars,} Sar:lⁱ i:#ff^{l,i' ii31%l'i, ?i.f,,i} J ? j,, j;, " r(amagiri Mandat, peccapalf i oiri.ia. -" ",,r,

¶29

1. Naveni Kranthi Kumar s/ o.;' s",,,,,a"1 il; JJff '#i? i3:Li^{0.,, 4 c} ), e. rs, ti- No.12_;7781, R/o H.rrio. 20-3_2 izil,iiavunuou, Godavarikhani Andhra Bernk, Ramagundam, Kariirnagar oistrict.

¶30

1. Thirunrala i:umara Swarny S/o Laxmana Swany. Ased abour 43 years. o.i, ;ii91 1ri"i tuniUl.,o., ,,, *o ,,,, ::,1Y1'/0!11q,^{R/o Q.Nc.,. r\L ru,} cenranary coronv. Karnaprrr, peddapalli DisLact.

¶31

1. Tatikonda Sadanandam s/ o.. rscn i o i u n ie;, J;illl'",.TI: A? fl ?:E J i::fil:f ,

¶32

R/o e.N0.93, Centanary^-Corony, Ratnapur, peddapalli District.

¶33

1. Vasarlalla !inod Rao, s/n r c.iurlbiotjs%&".?#;:::j::va.Rao,^asedabout s3^years, nlo .ri ruo.or, e iil;""i;i:J-*11:r^{Manaser,oc-2,} RG Ir Area, codav.rrikrrani,pe;;;; i"r'a?;i"ar venkateswara rempie,

¶34

1. SK. iiLrssain Shareef, S/o_ I et*iii1ffi;fu;i#l r'.',',lri3i3;"., Godavarikhani, g incline Coi harlmnagarDistrict.^{ony'RamagundamlYandal,}

¶35

,Petitioers

¶36

And

¶37

The Singareni Collieries Con.lpany Ltd., Rep. by its thgiTan^{ti Managing Dtrector, Singareni Bhavan,} Red Hill:;, I-lyderabad.

¶38

The Director^(PA & VY), Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., (SCCL), Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶39

I 3. The General Manager (Personnel), :I RC, IR & PM, Singareni Collieries I Company Ltd., Corporate, KothaguCern, I Khammam District. i I I 4. The General Manager. (Personnel) EE Cell, I Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate,Kothagudem;

¶40

i Khammam District.

¶41

Respondents

¶42

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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, and by declaring the action of the Respondents in not promoting the Petitioners to the E-3 Grade, and later to the E-4 grade with ,^{retrospective seniority and othermonetarybenefits as per the resolutionof board} of directors of the Respondent Company dated 22.02.2013 as stated in office Nilemorandum dated 11-O5-2O13 is illegal, arbitrary ,nd "on."qr"ntly direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to E-3 Grade Senior Under [,4anagers with a protection of seniority and extending all other monetary penefits

¶43

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶44

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 the Respondents to dispose of the Representation of the petitioners dated 06-02-2018, 02-04-2019, 03-04-2015, 08-05-2019, respectively pending the disposal of the above Writ Petition. -./

¶45

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶46

Petition under Section^'1 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to the E-3 Grade Senior under

¶47

¶48

Managers in Respondent Company after completion of 1 year service period as Under Managers, pending the disposar of the above writ F,etition

¶49

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶50

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the ,:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to fire the copies of .1) cR'/F,ER/ cror6t2949 dated 25t10/2018, 2) cRp/cs/O54t123 dated o6to3t2o13, 3) cRp/pER/cro13t12T7 dated 11tOS/2013. 4) CRptpERtct34t2ilg2 date:d 01tXgt2|1B, 5) CRPlPERtCt34t1444 dated 01tO6t2O13, 6) CRptpERtCt13t1623 dated 2210612013 and 7) cll/c5A(pcyRect_Dept/s7 dated )T/.01/2021 as Addr materiar papers in w p. No- 1357 0f 2020 0n the fire of the r,on,bre High court.

¶51

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI p.SRl HARSHA REDDY (sc FoR S|NGARENI coLLtER|ES CO.LTD)

¶53

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶54

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶55

WRIT PETITION No.1357 of 2O2O

¶56

ORDER:

¶57

Heard Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri. P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, appearing on behalf of the respondents l to 4.

¶58

2. The petitioners filed the writ petition seeking the following relief :

¶59

"to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, and by declaring the action of the Respondents in not promoting the Petitioners to the E-3 Grade, and later to the E-4^grade with retrospective seniority and other monetary beneflts as per the resolution of board of directors oft the Respondent Company dated 22.O2.2013 as stated, in office Memorandum dated 11-05-2013 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to^promote the Petitioners to E-3 Grade Senior Under Managers with a protection of seniority and extending all other monetary benefits and^pass".

¶60

3.. The case of the^{petitioners,in} brief as^per the averments made by the^{petitioners in the affidavit filed} by the^petitioners in

r''1

SN. J wP t357 2020

support of the^{present writ petition is that the p 3titioners 1 to} 20^joined in the Respondent^{Company and therea'ter they have} been appointed as an^{Executive Cadre. Thcr Respondent} Company also recruited^{ManagementTraineesin E2 Gradeas} MGT's and later they^{werepromoted to E3 Gri:deas Sertior} Under Manager.^{On 22.O2.2013 the RespondentCompanyhas} taken a resolution to^{follow the procedureadopte(l in CoalIndia} Limited regarding^{modificationsinExecutive promotions/} Recruitment rules. The^{petitionersfurthersuL mit that the} Respondent Company is not^{promotingthem along with the} external candidates and^{showing discrimination thoughthey are} equally^qualified on^{par with them. The pet tionersmade} representations dated 06.02.2018,^{02.o4,2(.lg,O:'b+.zOrg,ana} 08.05.2019 to the Respondent^{Company requesl.ing to adopt} earlier^policy as that^{of Coal India Limited and alsc to extendihe} same benefits to them but the^{RespondentConrpany has not} taken any decision on the said^{representation s} '^Aggrieved thereby, the^{petitioners approachedthis Court by filingthe} present writ petition.

¶66

It is further the^{specific case of the petitilnersthat the} Respondent Company^{through its Board of Direrctors meeting}

¶67

¶68

SN, J wP ri57²⁰²⁰

¶69

held on 22-02-2013^{had taken a resolutionto follow the same} procedure as adopted in Coal^{India Limited regarding} modifications in^{Executive promotions/Recruitmentrules and to} implement the^{samein the Respondentcompany' It is further} the case of the^{petitioners that the modificationsadopted by the} respondent's company^{in its meeting held on 22'o2'2O13are as} u nder';

¶70

a) Recruitment^{ofExecutivestraineesinall} : disciplines (either through open advertisement^or through campus)^{will be in E2 Grade in 1't year and} they will be^{placed inE3 gradeafter successfu!} completion of¹ Year^training'

¶71

b) Executave^{Traineeswho are at present in El} grade or those Executive^{Trainees who have been} appointed on or^{after O1.O1.2OO7 would be deemed} to have been^{appointedinE2 grade bnd after} successful completion^{of the requisite training they} would be^{placed/deemed to haVebeen placed in E3} grade and their^pay wil!^{be appropriately fixed'}

¶72

: Learned counsel appearing on behalf of^the petationers submits that^{the Respondent Company is not} permitting the^{petitionersto E3 Grade and later E4 Grade} with retrospective^{seniorityand other monetarybenefits}

SN, J wP 1357 2020

as per the Respondent Company own resolution at the Board of Darectors meeting held on 22.O2.2OL3 as stated in the Office Memorandum dated 11.rr5.2013 and aggrieved by the same the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition afterr submitting the representations dated 06.02,2018, O2.O4.2OL9.t O3.O4.2O19 and O8.OS.2O19 to the respondents herein requesting the respondents to permit the petitioners to E- 3 Grade Senior under Managers with lrrotection of seniority and extending all other monetary bernefits.

¶77

Learned St ndino Counsel aDDearinq on be alf of res ndents subm that the reore nta tbns as put forth bv the Detitioners are of the vear 20 18-2019 and uDon the petitioners re entillq to the resDo ndents hereinbvw a ofa d ailed re Dresentat naf resh, puttino forththeo ition ers' orievance as Dut l'orth in the Detita oners Dresent tions ad ressed t the resDondents dat o6.IJ2.2(J1a o2.o4.2(,19o3.o4.2.J19. and 08.o5.2019, the me wou ld be considered in a cord ance to la within a asona ble riod

¶78

¶79

sN- l wP 1357 2020

¶80

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on^{behalf of the} respondents.

¶81

7. Takin into consideration:

¶82

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶83

case,

¶84

(b) The submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^petitioners and^{the learned} Standang Counset for Singareni Collieries^{Company Ltd.,} appearing on behalf of respondents,

¶85

(c) The resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent company dated 22.02.2013^{as andicated in the} office Memorandum dated 11.O5.2O13, r

¶86

¶87

(d) The fact that the petitioners representations dated O6.O2.2o2La, O2.O4.2OLL,^{03.O4.2O19 and} O8.O5.2O19 seeking a direction to^{the respondents to} permit the petitaoners to E-3 Grade and later to^{E-4 Grade} with retrospective senaority and other^{monetary benefits} as per the resolution of^{Board ofDirectorsof the} Respondent Company dated^{22.O2'2O13 as indicated and}

)

SN. J \rP lt57 2020

stated in the Office Memorandum daterl 11.OS_2013 having not been considered as on date,

¶93

The writ petition -is disposed of ,Cirecting the petitioners to put forth the grievances of flre petationers as put forth in the presen't writ petition by way of a detailed representation addressed to the respondents herein duly incorporating the contents of the petitioners, earlier representations dated 06-02-2019, O}-O4-ZOLq, O3-O4-2O19 and O8-O5-2O19 within a perioct of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon the respondent Nos.2 and 3 receiuing the said representation of the petitioners within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter the respondent Nos. 2 and :i lre directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners pertaining to the petitioners' promotion to E-3 Grade an(l tater to E4 Grade with retrospective seniority and other monetary benefits as per the resolution of Board of Directors of the respondent company dated 22-02-2013 as itrdicated and stated in the Office Memorandum dated 1l-O5-2O13, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of person,el hearing to

¶94

¶95

SN. ] wP ll57 1020

¶96

the petitioners^{and pass appropriate orders deciding the} subject issue and^{duly communicate the decision to the}

¶97

petitioners. However, there^{shallbe no orderas to cost'}

¶98

Asa sequel, the^{miscellaneous petitions,if} any pending,^{in the WritPetition shall alsostarld closed'}

¶99

sD/-s. ALLIKARJUNA RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman and l\4anaging Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

¶104

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

¶105

The General Manager (Personnel), RC, lR and PM, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶106

4 The General Manager, (Personnel) EE Cell, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

¶107

¶108

One CC to SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN, Advocate IOPUCI,

¶109

6 One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES co LrD) [OPUC]

¶110

7 Two CD Copies.

BSK

\q'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712025

ORDER

WP.No.1357 of 2020

.-..
(
10 stP 2[25
ti.
'. ,.:,:.
I

¶119

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS

¶120

c*
tcaV.
,*(A,

Yadlapati Venkateswara Rao v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadlapati Venkateswara Rao 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukkiri Rajanna Vs The State of Telangana

E. Samuel John Vs The State of Telangana

A. Prabhavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Peer Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Habeebunissa Begum Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

D. Ganganna and 21 others Vs The State of Telangana and 10 others