Dismissed

T. Satya Narayana Murthy v. Union of India

Telangana HC12 Feb 2026WP/38227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired employee challenging the quashing of an O.A. against the cancellation of his promotion. The Court held that as the petitioner retired, the plea became infructuous. The Court granted liberty for the petitioner to prefer a review seeking variation of the Tribunal's order, without examining the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to the petitioner to prefer a review of the Tribunal's order.

T. Satya Narayana Murthy Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 38227 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

T; Sgtyj_ Narayana Murthy, S/o. Late Shri T. Surya Narayana Murthy, aged glgqt Z5 years, Occ Assistant Finance and Aciounts dfficer (Retrjj. d/o. lcAR -cenkal robacco Res_earch rnstitute, Research Station, opp New ivrircni Yard, G.T. Road, Guntur, R/o. Flat No.211, D Block, Concretb'Vivinta, Sri Durga Colony, Madheenaguda, Miyapur, Hycierabad - 500049

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union.of_lndia, 1ep by !!s Sqcretary, lndian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Krishi Bhavan, New Dethi - i t O OOt

¶12

2 The Director, Central Tobacco Research lnstitute, Dr. N C. Gopala Charv Road, Bhaskar Nagar, Sri Ram Nagar post, Rajahmundry -53J1[t-enOnri Pradesh.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of cERTIoRARY calling for records in connection with the order dated 30.09.2024 in o.A.No.87912016 on the file of central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and by quashing the same, allow the O.A. nullifying cancellation of promotion as Finance and Accounts officer by order dated 2gth April, 2016 as arbitrary illegal and unjust. consequenfly direct the respondents to consider case for promotion at Hyderabad in lcAR lnstitutes with retrospective date from lst January, 2016 i.e. the date on which his Junior has joined the post of F & Ao in cMFRl, cochin on promotion with all other consequential benefits, and attending benefits.

¶15

counsel fo'the petitioner: SRr G.SATBABA, REp. Ms. A.v.S.LAxMr

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO,

¶17

DEPUTY SOLICTTOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶18

The Court nrade the following: ORDER

'^--'-{'

TH H T TE AT ERABAD

T S mar

and

!Vrit Petition N o.38227 of 2025

¶24

Dated: 12.02.202 6

¶25

Iletrvecn:

¶26

'f .Sa tyanarayana Nturthv

¶27

...Pctitioner

¶28

and

¶29

Union of India, Rep. b"v its Secretarv, Indian Council of Agricultrrral Research (ICAR) )ielv Delhi and anothcr

¶30

...Respolrdent

¶31

Orclcri

¶32

Mr. G.Satbaba, learned counsel represents Ms. A.V.s.Larmi,

¶33

learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned

¶34

Depirty Solicitor General of India appears for union of India.

¶35

2- This writ Petition is fired for the folrowing rerief:

¶36

"to issue any writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of r.vrit of certiorari calling for records in connection rvith the order dated 30.09.2024 in o.A.No.g79/2016 on the file of central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and by quashing the same, allow the OA nullifying cancellation of promotion as Finance and Accounts officei by order dated 28th April, 2016, as arbitrary, illegal and unjust- consequently, direct the respondents to consider case for promotion at Hyderabad in ICAR Institutes with retrospective date from I't January, 2016 i.e., the date on rvhich his Junior has joined the post of F&Ao in GMFRI, cochin on promotio, with all other consequentiar be'efits and attending benefits."

t I It

ii tl

::2::

t I

t he irnpugned order reads as under:

¶42

"tsy this Original r\pplication, the applicant is seeking thc firllou rng rclief(s):

¶43

fhi:t this IIon'ble l'ribunal rnay be pleascd to call tbr the rccords pertaining to otllce lvlemorandum order No. F No.r\dmn.i l7- ll l0 l4 esu. dt. 28th April.20l6 along rvith ottlce order dt.-10. 12.20 l-j. Memorandum dt. 3.i.2016 promoting thc applicant to the i)ost of Finance & Accounts ()[llcer and consequently declare the action on the part of the respondc'nts in cancelling the promotion of the applicant as Finance & Accounts Offic.'r by order dt. 28th April. 2016 as arbitrary. illesal and urrjust and accordingly set aside the sanrc. Consetluentlv direbt the respondents to consider the rcqucst of the applicant tor posting hirn on promorion at llvdcrabad in lC.,\R Institutes. r\nd accordingly pay him all othcr consequential benetjts rvhich the applicant is eligible and entitled to and pass such other order or orders as this Ilon'ble Tribunal may decrn fit and proper in the interest of .justice."

¶44

Dr. P B V,jay Kuurar, leanrcd counsel, appeared for the applicant.

¶45

lvtr. B l'avan Kumar. learned r\dvocate, represented the rcspondents' counsel.

¶46

When thc matter has becn taken r-4t for consideration, the leamed colutsel for the applicant sLrbmitted that the applicant rvas prornoteci to the post ol Financc and Accounts Officer r,'ide Ordcr dt. 30.11.2015, honever, the applicant made Representation dt. I I .01.2016, requesting the respondents to post him at Hyderabad. Thereafter, on 03.03.2016, the respondents issued Mernorandum asking the applicant to report for duty, holvever, the applicant made another Representation dt.10.03.2016 to post him at Hyderabad in vierv of dornestic problem. At this stage, vide Order dt.28.04.2016, the respondents cancelled the promotion glr'anted to the applicant. Aggrieved over the same, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA.

¶47

Notices rvere issued to the respondents, however, reply rvas not filed. Therefore, the right of f,rling reply was forfeited by this Tribunal's Order dt.26.02.2020.

¶48

Today, the learned counsel appeared for the applicant fairly submitted that the applicant was 57 years old, when this OA was filed. During pendency of the OA, the applicant retired on superannuation. Therefore, the OA has become infructuous.

¶49

..?..

¶50

I I

¶51

It is to be noted that the employees do not have any right to clai,r posting as per their r,vish, either on transfer o. on promotion.

¶52

In vierv of the above, as the applicant retired from service, nothi.g survives for adjudication by this Tribunal in the present case. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed as infructuous. Tllere shall be r.o order as to costs.,'-

¶53

The petitioner has assailed it on the ground that the relief

¶54

prayed for in the original Application, filed against cancellation of lris promotion t'ide impugned order dated 29.04.2016, did not become infructuous due to retirement of the petitioner (applicant).

¶55

Learned rribunal apparently recorded a submission of the counsel representing the petitioner (applicant) to dispose of the oA as infructuous.

¶56

[n view of the aforesaid submission and the categorical statement recorded at Para 5 of the impugned order, we are of the view that if the petitioner is questioning the statement made by his counsel before the learned Tribunal, he should approach the learned Tribunal seeking review of the impugned order. what has been recorded in a judicial order cannot be ignored or doubted by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

¶57

Leamed counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks liberty to prefer a review before the learned Tribunal.

¶58

¶59

The instant writ Petition is accordingly disposed of r,vith the

¶60

atbresirid libefty. Let it be rnade clear that we have not gone into the

¶61

merits of the contention of the petitioner. No costs.

¶62

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

¶63

closed

¶64

To,

¶65

SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT REG //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER 1 il*i B""![?:?ix il I ii i" S,:l;1 o"5As ric u, t u ra, (ICAR), Krishi Bhavan,

¶66

2 The Director, Central Toblcco Research lnstitute, D, l,l C. _Gopala Chary F3rf,nrska^{r Nasi r, s n h}JL'r,lZ g", pili; -ffi ;i m-und ry _s33 1 0s, Andh ra

¶67

One CC to Ms. A.V.S.LAXMI, Advocate [OpUC]

¶68

4' one cc to sRr |,B!.,J NGA RAo, DEpury solrcrroR .ENERAL oF rNDrr, Hish court ro,. iri"'siriJo; ilir;;#, ,rt"rabad [opUC] Two rlD CopiesrlD CopiesCopies

¶69

Two rlD CopiesrlD CopiesCopies

BSR BS Pnnq.

, .^i]i

. i.r

HIGH C.OURT

DATED: 12t02t2026

ORDER

WP.No.ii822t of 2O2S

lHE S le
'(
o
()
t ''(' 2 7 F[8 201
*
i?

¶79

DISPOSIING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUIT COSTS

¶80

@bq >61il)t

T. Satya Narayana Murthy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Satya Narayana Murthy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Zaheeruddin Vs The State of Telengana

Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (Midhani), Vs Sigi Narsinga Rao

Ms Veena Kashyap, Vs Uccha Siksha Aur Sodh Sansathan, and 4 Others

M/s. Mr Trading Co. Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer

Dyentra Tech Controls Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Telangaria State Road Transport Corporation Vs T. Ramulu