Telangana High Court
WP/27610/2005 of S.Satyanarayana Rao Vs The Food Corporation of india, rep by its Chairman-cum- on 27 December 2005
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27610 of 2005 Dated 27-12-2005 Between: S.Satyanarayana Rao S/o.late Rangaiah Food Corporation of India, Nizamabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Food Corporation of India, rep by its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, FCI,16-20,Barakhamba Lane, New
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 27610 of 2005
Dated 27-12-2005
Between:
S.Satyanarayana Rao S/o.late Rangaiah Food Corporation of India, Nizamabad
AND
..... PETITIONER
The Food Corporation of India, rep by its Chairman-cum- Managing Director,FCI,16-20,Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-100001 and others......RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27610 of 2005
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 petitioner was appointed as a Typist in the Food Corporation of India, andpromoted as Stenographer Grade-II, on 08-02-1973. When it came to the question of promotion for the higher post, thepetitioner had to face some disadvantage, on account of the modificaton of the rules.According to him, he lost his seniority in the post of Assistant Grade-I, and that thesame was reflected in the subsequent post of Assistant Manager. Petitioner statesthat though he was extended the benefit of notional seniority in the cadre ofAssistant Grade-I, it was not reflected in the superior post of Assistant Manager. Inthis context, he claims to have made a representation on 06-08-2005 to the ZonalManager, the 2[nd] respondent herein, and complains that the same has not beendisposed of as yet.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.
The circumstances, under which the petitioner was extended the benefit of notionalseniority in the cadre of Assistant Grade-I, and denied the same for the next higherpost; are not before this Court. The petitioner claims to have made a representationon 06-08-2005, in this regard. The 2[nd ]respondent is under obligation to deal with thesame, so that the petitioner could know, where he stands, in terms of his seniority.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner, tosubmit a copy of the representaion dated 06-08-2005, together with the copy of thisorder, to the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent, in turn, shall pass appropriateorders on the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
Dt.27-12-2005
Note:c.c. in three days.(B/O) KO