Telangana High Court
WA/1522/2005 of D.Narasimha Murthy, Vs The Vice Chairman AND Managing Director, A.P.State Civil on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM Writ Appeal No.1522 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) The appellant states that he was initially appointed as Grade- III Accountant, in the A.P. Civil Supplies
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Writ Appeal No.1522 of 2005
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
The appellant states that he was initially appointed as Grade-III Accountant, in the A.P. Civil Supplies Corporation Limited i.e.respondents, in the year 1979. Thereafter, he was promoted to thepost of Grade-II Accountant, on 07.03.1984. Next promotion fromGrade-II Accountant is the post of Accountant Grade-I.
In the establishment of the respondents, there appears to beequivalence between the posts of Accountants and Assistants. Twopersons, by name, G. Nagabhushan Rao and B. Asi Babu wereinitially appointed as Assistants Grade-III in the year 1982 i.e. threeyears subsequent to the recruitment of the appellant. However, theyare said to have been promoted to the post of Assistants Grade-II, inthe year 1982 itself, and this obviously, is two years earlier to thepromotion of the appellant to the post of Accountant Grade-II. Subsequently, those two individuals were converted as AccountantsGrade-II. Both of them were placed above the appellant in theseniority list for the post of Accountant Grade-II. The appellant wasplaced at serial No.9 and those two individuals at serial Nos.7 and 8,in the seniority list supplied through proceedings, dated 03.03.1990. Challenging the same, the appellant field W.P.No.18080 of 2001. Alearned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order,dated 21.07.2005. Hence, this writ appeal.
Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel forthe appellant, and Sri D.Linga Rao, learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents.
The grievance of the appellant, if at all, has arisen when theseniority list for the post of Grade-II was prepared vide proceedings,dated 06.02.1988. The promotion to the post of Grade-II Accountanttook place in the year 1984. It does not appear that the appellanthas made any protest at that time. The seniority list for the post ofAccountant Grade-I was published through circular memo, dated03.03.1990. It is no doubt true that the appellant made certainrepresentations in this behalf.
In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge took intoaccount, the purport of Rule 18(c) of the A.P. State Civil SuppliesCorporation Limited Rules (for short ‘the Rules’), and found thatthere was no infraction thereof, vis-à-vis the appellant.
We find serious flaw in the present set of proceedings initiatedby the appellant. He was claiming seniority over two persons, byname
G. Nagabhushan Rao and B. Asi Babu. It is not as if those two haveoccupied places above the appellant after promotion to the post ofAccountant Grade-I. They occupied such higher places even in thepost of Accountant Grade-II.
If one takes into account, the purport of Rule 18(c) of theRules, it becomes clear that whenever an employee in a particularcategory or group moves to another post, carrying same pay scale,he will carry with him, the date of appointment to that category. In theinstant case, if the two persons namely, G. Nagabhushan Rao andB. Asi Babu, have been appointed or promoted to the post ofAssistants Grade-II on a date earlier to the date of promotion of theappellant to the post of Accountant Grade-II, such placing wouldcertainly accord with the Rules. If, on the other hand, their promotionto the post of Assistant Grade-I was subsequent to that of thepromotion of the appellant to the post of Accountant Grade-II, adifferent approach is needed. This, however, is a matter for verification, and even now, the appellant can make a representationin this behalf.
Hence, the writ appeal is disposed of, leaving it open to theappellant to submit a representation to respondents 1 and 2, in thisbehalf. As and when such representation is received, therespondents shall examine the same with reference to the relevantrules and the facts reflected in the records. If they find that anyalternations become necessary in the seniority list, an opportunity ofsubmitting representation shall be given to the persons affected. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as tocosts.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall alsostand disposed of.
____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Date:10.07.2014GJ
_____________________CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.