V. Rameshwara Rao and 2 Others Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 10 Others

V. Rameshwara Rao, S/o Late Kondaiah, Aged about 50 years, Senior Personnel Officer, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. O/o General N/lanager, Manuguru Area, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District, R/o Manuguru.

¶11

Mandala Srinivas, S/o Komaraiah, Aged about 40 years, Senior Personnel Officer, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Shanthi Khani, fvlandamarri Area.

¶12

Mohammad tMadar Saheb, s/o Afzal Pasha, Aged about 50 years, Senior Personnel Officer, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. Kondapuram [/ine, Manuguru Area, Bhadradri, Kothagudem District.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶16

The Director (PA & W), Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudbm, Bhad rad ri-Kothagudem District.

¶17

The General Manager (Personnel), RC-IR and PM, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Corporate Personnel Department, Kothagudem, BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶18

The General Manager (Personnel), EE Cell, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Corporate Personnel Department, Kothagudem, BhadradriKothagudem District

¶19

Sri Samsani V Rajeswar Rao, S/o Sri Satyanarayana, Aged about 38^Years, Sr. Personnel Officer, APHMEL, Kondapalli, Vijayawada, AP.

¶20

Sri M. Maitreya Bandhu, S/o. Madhukar, Senior PersonnelOfficer, [Vlandamarri.

¶21

Sri Mattaparti Rajesh, S/o Srinivas, Aged about 32^years, Sr.Personnel Officer, RK 5 lncline, Srirampur, Manclteiral Dist.

¶22

Sri Devender Reddy Varamganti, S/o Ravi Varamganti, Aged about 29^years, Sr. Personnel Officer, RK 8 lnc, Srirampur, Mancheiral Dist.

¶23

Sri Pasam Bosvanth Avinash, S/o PVS Karuna Kumar, Aged about^{34 years,} Sr.Personrrel Officer, PKOC, Manuguru Area, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist.

¶24

10.Sri Vorem Anil Kumar, S/o V Maddiramulu, Aged about 36^years, Sr.Personnel Officer, P/K 5 lnc. Rudrampur Post-507¹ 19, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist.

¶25

1 1 . Sri Gunarn Srihari, S/o. Yellaiah, aged about 34^years, Sr. Personnel Officer, JK OCP,^/ellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist.

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition urrder A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue an approp'iate Writ, Order or Direction more^particularly one in the nature of^a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioners .are entitled to have their cases considered and he^promoted to E-4 Grade with all consequential benefits in^preference to the claims^r>f subsequent appointees in E-1^grade such as the un-official respondents by extending the benefits of Circular No. CRP/PER/C101311277, daled 1110512013 issuad by the 1 st Respondent Company and Circular No.ClL:C5A(PCyCCC/47, dated 13102120'19 issued by Coal lndia Limited as was done earlier by the 1st Respcndent Company and accordingly have their seniority in E-2 and E-3 Grades re-fixed, duly setting aside the rejection order issued by the 4th Respondent vide Ref. No. CRP/PER/C12211271 dated 18/06/2020 that too after constituting a Committee Ofii,:e Order No.CRP/PEFI/C1202011231, dated 15/06/2020 to examine into the grievarces of Petitioners and other employees of the Company, as wholly arbitrary, illegal discriminatory, erroneous, inational, contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court of lndia and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶28

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2020

¶29

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 suspend the operation of the impugned order issued by the 4th Respondent vide Ref. No. CRPIPENCI22.11271 dated 1810612020 and direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to consider the cases of the Petitioners for^promotion to E-4 Grade in terms of Circular No. CRP/PERyC/01 311277 , dated 1110512013 issued by the 1 st Respondent Company and Circular No. CIL:C-5A(PC)|CCC|47, daled 1310212019 issued by Coal lndia Limited, pending dispos;al of the writ petition.

¶30

t.A. NO: oF 2022

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court may be pteasedto restrain} Respondents 1 to 4 from according^{promotions to Respondents5 to 10 hereinfrom E-} 4 Grade to E-5 Grade in the interest of^{justice as the Petitioners herein would be put} to the ignominy of working under subsequent^{entrants into service, pending disposal} of the writ^petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRATHAP^{NARAYAN SANGHI' Sr. COUNSEL,} REP. SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN

¶33

Counset for the Respondent No.l to^{4: SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY,} SC FOR SCCL

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.S, 7 &} I^{to 11: SRI S.LAKSHMAREDDY,} Sr. COUNSEL, REP. SRI S.RAHUL REDDY

¶35

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

3

¶37

SN,J wP No.r472O 2O2O

¶38

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶39

w.P. No. 1472O OF 2O2O

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard Sri Prathap Narayan Sanghi, tearned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel on record, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned standing counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of R1 to R4, and Sri S.Lakshma Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri S. Rahu! Reddy, learned counsel on record appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.S, 7,9 to 1-1-.

¶42

2. PRAYER:

¶43

The Petitioners aDoroach d this Court kinq the

¶44

oraver as under :

¶45

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioners are entitled to have their cases considered and be promoted to E-4 Grade with all cons'3quential benefits in preference to the claims of subsequent appointments in E-1 Grade such as the un_ official respondents by extending the benefits of Circular No.CRP/PER/C/0L3/L277, dated 11.05.2013 issued by rhe

¶46

4

¶47

sN,l WP No.14720-2020

¶48

1't Respondent^{Company andCircularNo.CIL:} C-5A(PC) /CCC\47,^{dated t3.02.20t9issuedby coal India} Limited as was^{done earlier by the 1't Respondent Company} and accordingly^{have their seniority in E-2 and E-3 Grades} re-fixed, duly^{settingaside the rejection orderissued by the} 4th Respondent^{vide Ref.No,: CRP/PERIC/22/127L dated} 18.06.2020 that^{too after constitutinga CommitteeOffice} order No.GRP/PERIC/2020/L23t,^{dated 15.06.2020to} examine into^{the grievances ofPetitioners and other} employees of^{the Company, 3s wholly arbitrary,illegal'} discriminatory,^{erroneous, irrational, contrary to law laid} down by^{the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in violation} of Articles^{14 and 16 0f the constitution of India in the} interest of^{justice and to pass such otherorder"'"}

¶49

The case of the^{Petitioners as Der the averments} Etitioners^{in supoort of the Dresent wrat Detitionin brief} are as under^:

¶50

(i)ThepetitionerswereappointedaSWelfareofficer (Trainee) in 2015^{through internal recruitment and were initially} placed in E-1, later^{moved to E-2 upon completionof training'} This^{placement was contrary to circularNo. GRP/PER/C/0131L277} dated 11.05.2013,^{through which sccl had adopted the coal} India Limited^{(CIL) norms prescribinginitialplacementof Welfare} officers in E-2^{and advancementto E-3 after one year of training'}

¶51

5

¶52

SN,J wP No.14720-2020

¶53

: I : :a I i i ! i i I I !I t I'i I : tII I I tI II It III I

¶54

These benefits were extended to earlier internal batches of 2005 and 2006 as well as to external recruits of 2016, but not to the petitioner:;, resulting in the anomalous situation of the unofficial respondents being treated as seniors to the petitioners in the E-3 Grade.

¶55

ii) A committee constituted by SCCL on 26.06.20L9 examined the issue, but its report was withheld without any action being taken. While the petitioners' earlier filed W.P. No. 6633 of 2020 challenging this discriminatory treatment which was pending the first respondent herein issued another office order on 15.06.2020 constituting a fresh committee to consider their grievance:. However, even before this committee could deliberate, the 4th respondent issued a rejection order vide Ref. No. CRP/PE&|C/221L271 dated 18.06.2020-within three days of the committere's constitution-thereby rendering its purpose redundant. Consequently, the petitioners withdrew their earlier writ petit:ion with liberty to file a fresh case.

¶56

iii) It is further the case of the petitioners that Junior Executiv,e Trainees (Civil) who were recruited internally in 2013 were placed directly in E-3 by applying Circular No. cRP/PER/clot3/L277 dated 11.05.2013, despite their mode of selectiorr being similar to that of the present petitioners. Hence,

¶57

6

¶58

SN,J wP No.14720_2020

¶59

the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking to set aside the rejection order, refix their seniority in E-2 and E-3, and consider them for promotion to E-4 with all consequential benefits.

¶60

4. PERUSED THE RECORD :

¶61

(A) The order imouqned dated 18.O6.2O2O issued bv resoondeot to the 1,st oetitioner. is extracted

¶62

hereunder:

¶63

" Ref : No. CRP/PERI Cl L4 / L26L

¶64

Sri V. Rameshwara Rao,

¶65

EC. No.289L17,

¶66

Sr. Personnel Officer & Petitioner O/o GM, MNG Area

¶67

Sub: Order dated 05.05.2020 issued by Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in WP No.6633 of 2020 filed by Sri V.Rameshwara Rao and 6 others - Reg.

¶68

Ref: Yr rep., dated 23.04.2019 submitted to Director(PA&W)

¶69

-000-

¶70

Your common representation dated 23.O4.2OL9 addressed to Director (PA&W) to extend the benefit of re-gradation at entry level as Welfare Officer Trainee(E-2) instead of E-1 Grade and subsequently, E-3 Grade as Sr. Personnel Officer after successful completion of one year training period in line with circular No.CRP/PER/C/OL31L277, dated 11.05.2013 and also in line with Office Order of CIL vide CIL: C-5A(PC)/CCC/47, dated L3.O2.2OL9 has been examined in-detail.

¶71

It is hereby informed that as Clause No.1 of circular dated 11.05.2013, the executives who are appointed Executive Trainees on or after 01.01.2007 either through open advertisement or through campus are only eligible for placement in E-2 Grade in 1't

¶72

I I

¶73

7

¶74

SN,' wP No.r4720_2020

¶75

year and they will be placed in E-3 Grade notionally by the date of Issue of circular.

¶76

Since you were appointed in 33olo quota with age, and rela)(ation in^o/o of marks in qualification, difference of qualification prescribed for the post of MT(Personnel) and Welfare Offir:er Trainee, you are not entitle for re-gradation in line with given guidelines.

¶77

As per circular No.CRP/PER/R/OL/07/620, dated 07.1.0.2014 issued by the company i.e., after issued circular datr:d 11.05.2013 for re-gradation, you have applied for the post of Welfare Officer Trainee(E-l) Grade by accepting all terms and conrJitions, your claim for re gradation on par with external can(lidates are not tenable.

¶78

With regards to re-gradation on par with the Internal can,lidates of CIL vide Office Order dated 13.02.2019, it is hereby informed that the Recruitment rules of CIL and SCCL are different frorn one another. Management has adopted recruitment criteria of^()IL only In the case of external candidates but not internal candidates. Hence, your representation for re-gradation at entry level In E-2 Grade on par with external candidates and also like internal candidates of CIL is not covered under our policy.

¶79

It is further Inform that the direction issued by the Hon'ble Hign Court of Calcutta in the case No.APO 368 of 2017 in Wp No.1064 of 2015 is not applicable to SCCL since SCCL is not party in the said case.

¶80

This issues with the approval of competent authority."

¶81

(B) The order i Duoned dated 18-O6.2O2O issued bv

¶82

resDonden t to the 2d oetitioner, is racted

¶83

hereunder:

¶84

" Ref : No. CRP / PER/ Cl 22/ L27 t

¶85

Sri V. Rameshwara Rao, EC. No. 2924O9a, Sr. Personnel Officer & Petitioner SK Mine, MMR

¶86

8

¶87

SN,J wP No.14720_2020

¶88

Sub: Order dated 05.05.2020 issued by Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in WP No.6633 of 2020 filed by Sri V.Rameshwara Rao and 6 others - Reg.

¶89

Ref: Yr rep., dated 23.04.2019 submitted to Director(PA&W)

¶90

-000-

¶91

Your common representation dated 23.04.2OL9 addressed to Director^(PA&W) to extend the benefit of re-gradation at entry level as Welfare Officer Trainee(E-2) instead of E-1 Grade and subsequently, E-3 Grade as Sr. Personnel Officer after successful completion of one year training period in line with circular No.CRP/PER/C/0131L277, dated 11.05.2013 and also in line with Office Order of CIL vide CIL: C-5A(PC)/CCC/47, dated t3.O2.2OL9 has been examined in-detail.

¶92

It is hereby informed that as Clause No.1 of circular dated 11.05.2013, the executives who are appointed Executive Trainees on or after 01.01.2007 either through open advertisement or through campus are only eligible for placement in E-2 Grade in l't year and they will be placed in E-3 Grade notionally by the date of issue of circular.

¶93

Since you were appointed in 33olo quota with age, and relaxation in^o/o of marks in qualification, difference of qualification prescribed for the post of MT(Personnel) and Welfare Officer Trainee, you are not entitle for re-gradation in line with given guidelines.

¶94

As per circular No.CRP/PER/R/01/07/620, dated O7.LO.2OL4 issued by the company i.€., after issued circular dated 11.05.2013 for re-gradation, you have applied for the post of Welfare Officer Trainee(E-l) Grade by accepting all terms and conditions, your claim for re gradation on par with external candidates are not tenable.

¶95

With regards to re-gradation on par with the internal candidates of CIL vide Office Order dated L3.O2.2OL9, it is hereby informed that the Recruitment rules of cIL and sccL are different from one another. Management has adopted recruitment criteria of cIL only in the case of external candidates but not internal candidates. Hence, your representation for re-gradation at entry level in E-2 Grade on par with external candidates and also like internal candidates of CIL is not covered under our policy.

¶96

It is further inform that the direction issued by the Hon,ble High Court of Calcutta in the case No.ApO 368 of 20t7 in Wp

¶97

I

¶98

9

¶99

5N,J wP No.14720_2020

¶100

No.1064 of 2015 is not applicable to SCCL since SCCL is not party in th e said case.

¶101

This issues with the approval of competent authority."

¶102

(c) The order dated 19.08.2O2O Dassed in

¶103

W.P.No.6633 2O2O filed bv the oetationers herein and

¶104

others, is extracted hereunder:

¶105

"Learned counsel for petitioners informs the Court that after filing of the writ petition, order is passed rejecting the request of the petit-ioners, therefore cause in the writ petition does not survive and he seeks withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy against the decision now communlcated. Granting said liberty, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed."

¶106

DIscussIoN AN CONCLUSION:-

¶107

Learned counsel aDDearino on be alf of the

¶108

oetitioners mainlv outs forth the followino submissions:

¶109

t. 'l-he petitioners are in service candidates. The petitioners ;lpplied for the post of Welfare Officer Trainees pursuant :o the Notification (Circular) dated 07.10.2014. The petitioners were appointed as E1 Officer on 03.02.2015 and on completion of 1 year training the petitioners were appointed as E2 Officers on 03.02.2016.

¶110

. The respondent issued a Notification for the post of Management Trainee and the petitioners were appointed

¶111

10

¶112

sN,l wP No.14720_2020

¶113

as E2 Officers pursuant to the Notification No.01/2015 on 04.04.2016 and on completion of 1 year period promoted as E3 Officers on 04.04.20t7.

¶114

iii. It is the specific grievance of the petitioners that the petitioners were made to wait for 3 years for promotion to the post of E3 Officer in spite of the policy decision to promote Welfare Officers on completion of 1 year period in terms of Office Order dated 11.05.2013, whereas the unofficial respondents were promoted on completion of 1 years service.

¶115

iv. The further grievance of the petitioners is that the Welfare Officers who were recruited in 2005, 2006,2013 and 2017 were granted^promotion from E2 to E3 Grade on completion of 1 year^period and the^petitioners were appointed as E2 Officers on 03.02.20L6 whereas the unofficial respondents were appointed as E2 Officers on 16.04.2016.

¶116

V The grievance of the petitioners is that the unofficial respondents being^juniors in the category of E2 and hence they cannot be given promotion prior to the petitioners.

¶117

11

¶118

SN,J wP No.14720_2020

¶119

vt The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the r€:spondents in not implementing the Office orders dated 1t.05.2013 to the Welfare Officer recruited in the year 2r)L4 and further treating the Welfare Officer differenfly in comparison to the Management Trainees, though the p,3titioners had given a detailed representation on 23.04.20t9 putting forth the grievance of the petitioners but the same had not been considered and had been rejected under the impugned order dated 18.06.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition, in view of the fact that the order impugned dated 18.6.2020 is contrary t,r the specific instructions in the office order dated 11.05.2013.

¶120

Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel poearinq on behalf of the oetitioners contends that the writ oetitio has to be allowed as oraved for.

¶121

Learned counsel aooeari nq on behalf of the Resoondents mainlv Duts fo h the followinq su bmissions based on the verme made in the coun r affida t, in oarticular oaras 6. 8, 19, 2O, 21, 22 and 23:

¶122

I

¶123

12

¶124

SN,J wP No.14720_2020

¶125

i. In accordance to the Office Order dated 11.05.2013 issued by the Respondent Company, the Trainees who were appointed in open competition through external stream on or after 01.01.2007 to 11.05.2013 are only eligible for regradation subject to fulfillment of the other terms and conditions. Hence the^question of re-gradation of Welfare Officers Trainees appointed^prior to 01.01.2007 does not arise.

¶126

.; l!i: ' .t ;:ai,. .,1i":

¶127

ii. Even if anyone was re-graded erroneously prior to 01.01.2007, action would be taken for correction of such mistakes. The claim of the^petitioners that^petitioners are eligible for re-gradation on^par with external candidates in line with 2005-06 batch without having prescribed qualifications is not tenable and against the principles of law.

¶128

iii. The request of the^petitioners to re-grade them at entry level as E-2 cannot be agreed to and is not permissible in view of the guidelines issued vide Office Order dated 11.05.2013 since the petitioners do not fulfill the said conditions.

¶129

13

¶130

SN,J wP r!o.r4720_2020

¶131

iv. The Executive's Civil Seniority List is being maintained based on Grade, Designation and Discipline.

¶132

v. The seniority in civil list will be reckoned on date of prornotion to the present Grade. The petitioners, seniority was fixed in E-2 and E-3 Grade. Since the petitioners were promoted from E3 to E3 Grade on 01.10.2017, their seniority was fixed accordingly.

¶133

vi. As per the Executive's^promotion Rules, completion of 3 years effective service is pre-requisite condition to get elig;5;;;,, for promotion to next level. Since the petitioners did not fulfill the said conditions, the petitioners were not callr:d for medical examination to consider them for next leverl of promotion.

¶134

vii. Guidelines issued vide office order dated 11.05.2013 are not applicable to the petitioners, since their mode of entry into Executive cadre was neither in open advertisement nor campus. The petitioners were appointed uncer quota for internal candidates in the Executive Cadre. The plea of the petitioners that they were discriminated is not tenable.

¶135

I

¶136

L4

¶137

slt,) wP No.r.r7zo_2020

¶138

viii. The qualification prescribed For Management Trainee (Personnel)/E-2 Grade is minimum 600/o in MBA and they are appointed through open advertisement as per the conditions stipulated in the Office Order dated 11.05.2013. The qualification prescribed for Welfare Officer Trainee/E-1 Grade (Internal) and Management Trainee (Personnel)/E-2 grade are different from one another in terms of qualification, o9€, percentage of marks secured, etc. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that they were discriminated is totally incorrect.

¶139

ix. The Policy decision was taken to allow E-2 Grade to all Management Trainees in all disciplines including Personnel discipline and accordingly, the Recruitment Rules were amended and modified.

¶140

x. The plea of the petitioners that the decision of the Management to allow entry level E-2 Grade to the Management Trainees is not permissible and illogical.

¶141

Based on the aforesaid submissions and the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondent Nos.l to 4, the learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the respondents contends that there as no

¶142

15

¶143

5N,l wP r'ro. 14720_2020

¶144

!!le@!igt-in the order ampuoned dated 18.06.2020 assued bv resDondent he in and th refore. th writ Det ion is liabt to be dismissed since the itioners re not entitled for an relief.

¶145

A bare perusal of the order impugned dated 19.06.2020 issued by :he 4th respondent indicates that it is an order passed without as,signing any specific reasons mechanically rejecting the representation of the petitioners dated 23.04.2019 in compliance to the dire,:tions issued by this Court vide order dated 19.0g.2020 in W.P.No.663 of 2O2O filed by the petitioners and 6 others on an earlier occasion. The order impugned referring to the Circular dated 07.1.0.2014 issued by the Respondent Company indicates that the p(rtitioners had applied for the post of WELFARE OFFICER (TRAINEE) E-1 GRADE (INTERNAL) by accepting all the terms and conditions. Hence, the claim of the petitioners for re-grading on par with internal candidates is not tenable.

¶146

It is the specific case of the petitioners as put forth by the petitioners' vide petitioners, detailed representation dated 23.04.2019 addressed to the 4th respondent herein is that, the petitioners were appointed as Welfare Officer (Trainee) in E_1

¶147

16

¶148

s ,t wP No.14720-2020

¶149

Grade in^pursuance to the^{Notification (Circular)dated} 07.:.0.20L4. On 03.02.2015^{and on completion of 1 year training} period, the petitioners were appointed as E2 Officer^on 03.02.2016. Whereas Respondent^{No.1 issued Notification to the} post of Management Trainee and they were appointed^{as E2} Officers^pursuant to the^{Notification No.o1 of 2015 on 04.04.2016} and on completion of 1^{year period promotedas E3 Officeron} 04.04.2017. Further it^is the^{specific case of the petitionersthat} petitioners' were made to wait for 3^years for^{promotionto the} post of E3 Officer inspite of the^policy decision,^{they couldnot be} promoted as Welfare Officers on completion of 1^{year period in} terms of Office Order dated^{11.05.2013, whereas the unofficial} respondents were^{promotedon completionof 1 years service'The} petitioners submitted a detailed representation^{dated 23.04.20L9} addressed to the^{4th respondentherein, but the 4th respondentdid} not consider the reguest of^{the petitioners and the requestof the} petitioners had been rejected unilaterally without^{assigning any} reasons stating that the^{representation of the petitioners for} re-gradation at entry level in^{E-2 Grade on par with external} candidates and also like^{internalcandidatesof CoalIndia Limited} (CIL) is not covered under the^policy.

¶150

17

¶151

SN,J wP lro.14720_2020

¶152

/'

¶153

9 This Court oD tnes that the order imDuoned oassed bv the^{4s--resoondent} dated^18. directions of this Court dated 19.08.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.6 633 of 2O2O is contrary to the soirit of the said this Court nd also contrarv to the Office Order dated 11.O5. 2013 which admittedlv ad not been imolemented in resDect of th tioners herei since the Welfare Officer Recruitment in the vear 015 had been treated differentlv in comoarison to the Manaoement Trainees. this Court ooine that the same is whollv r^!r+ r rnd ranfu.rr.r, +a +ha naliarr elaaic n rlca lha e,l a da lin ac att a Offira 6rda r .l^ia.l 1 1 llE )oI ? einna llra oetitioners were aooointed as El Officers on O3.O2.2015 and the unoffacaal respondents were appoanted as E2 Officers on 15.O4.2O16 and thouoh thev were iuniors in the cateoorv of E2, vet thev had been oromoted earlier to the oetitioners without imolementino the Officer Order dated 11.O5.2O13 an respect of the oetationers herein. Therefore this Court ooines that the subiect issue needs reconsaderation bv the 4s resoondent herein.

¶154

TAKING INTO CONSIDER.ATION:

¶155

18

¶156

SN,J WP No.l47ZO-2O20

¶157

A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

¶158

case,

¶159

B) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,

¶160

C) The order impugned dated 18.06.2020 issued by the 4th respondent to the lst petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above),

¶161

D) The order impugned dated 18.06.202O issued by the 4th respondent to the 2"d petitioner, (referred to and extracted above),

¶162

E) The order dated 19.O8.2O2O passed in w.P.No.6633 ot 2o2o filed by the petitioners herein and others, (referred to and extracted above),

¶163

LJ

¶164

sN,l WP No.1472O-2O20

¶165

! !i ! 1 Ii

¶166

there is no order^{as to costs.}

¶167

Miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending shall stand}

¶168

closed.

¶169

//TRUE COPY//

¶170

SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI^SHANKAR ASSISTANT 6^REGISTRAR

¶171

SECTION^OFFICER

¶172

oneFairGopytotheHon'b|eMRSJUSTIGESUREPALLINANDA (For Her LadYshiPs^{Kind Perusal)}

¶173

To,

¶174

The Charrman^{and tVlanaging Director, Singareni Collieries CompanyLimited} Singareni^{Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad'T'S'}

¶175

The^{Director (PA&W), Singareni Collieries Company Limited,Kothagudem'} Bhad rad^{ri-Kothagudem District'}

¶176

3.TheGeneralManager(Personnel),RC-IRlPM:SingareniCollieriesCompany Limited,^{corporatepersonneiDepartment,Kothagudem,Bhadradri-} Kothagu,Jem^District.

¶177

The General^{Manager (Personnel)'EE Cell'S} ingareni Collieries^ComPanY Kothagudem,^Bhadradri-

¶178

Limited,^{Corporate Personnel Department'} Kothagudem^District.

¶179

11 LR^CoPies

¶180

The Under^{secretary,union of lndia,Ministryof Law, Justice and company} Affairs, trlew^Delhi.

¶181

fu,".

¶182

7 /.

¶183

The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, '^rvvvvrsrrvl" L rvib r qr'' ary, High I rrvr Court Buildings, Hyd'erabad.^{v- '-'}

¶184

\

¶185

One CC to SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate tOpUCI 9. One CC to SRI S.RAHUL REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 10.One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL tOpUCI 1 1 . Two CD Copies

BSR TKS b

2

4

CC TODAY

t I

HIGH COURT