Telangana High Court
WP/7723/2006 of B.Krishnudu, Vs Transmission Corporation of A.P., on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 7723 of 2006 Date: 27.12.2006 Between: B. Krishnudu. ..... PETITIONER AND Transmission Corporation of A.P., rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 7723 of 2006
Date: 27.12.2006
Between:
B. Krishnudu.
AND
..... PETITIONER
Transmission Corporation of A.P., rep. by itsChairman and Managing Director,Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and another.
.....RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 7723 of 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that heis entitled to re-fixation of his pay by extending four weightageincrements for possessing diploma qualification, duly taking the post,which he was holding as on 01.04.1981 in terms of Regulation 30-Aread with Regulation 39(1) and (2) of A.P.S.E.B. Service RegulationsPart-I, and though the said benefit was extended to similarly placedpersons of other Zones, and he made several representations, therespondent-Organization neither considered his representations norextended the said benefit to him. Hence, he filed the present writpetition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-Organization.
According to the petitioner, he is entitled to re-fixation of his payby extending four weightage increments for possessing diplomaqualification, duly taking the post, which he was holding as on01.04.1981 in terms of Regulation 30-A read with Regulation 39(1) and(2) of A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations Part-I. It is his further case that hemade several representations in that regard. However, the fact remains,none of the representations show that any acknowledgment was issuedby the respondent-Organization in receipt of the said representations. That apart, a perusal of the Memo dated 31.12.2001 issued by therespondent-Organization, filed along with material papers of the writpetition by the petitioner itself clearly shows that the pay fixation of the petitioner from 25.11.1969 i.e., from the date of his joining as Lineman,has been done as per the Board’s Memo dated 27.01.1995 forpossessing diploma qualification, and the petitioner was informed thatno further correspondence will be entertained in that regard. In that viewof the matter, no direction as sought for by the petitioner in the writpetition can be given. At any rate, the petitioner, having kept quiet formore than 15 years, after fixation of his pay in terms of Board’s Memodated 27.01.1995, now cannot contend that he is entitled to fixation ofhis pay by extending four weightage increments.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordinglydismissed. No costs.
___________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.