WP/27980/2008 of V. Sambareddy, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 27980 of 2008

Between:

V. Sambareddy, S/o. Rajireddy,

M.P. Mahadevpur, Karimnagar District, (Retired), R/o. 10-1-723, Lane No.7, West Maredpally, Secunderabad.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Rajand Ruraland Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad.Pradesh, Hyderabad.

3 The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Karimnagar.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a Writ, order or directionmore in the nature ofMandamus declaring the Judgement of the A.P. Administrtive Tribunal inO.a.No. 2058 of 2006, dated 31-10-2008 and Memo No. 10711/CPR &RE/13-ZP/2002, dated 24-11-2004 issued by the Commissioner forPanchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., Hyderabad and the orders ofGovernment in Memo No. 12651/Estt.V/05-3, PR & RD., dated 3-3-2006as illegal and contrary tothe material on record and consequently holdthat the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion to the post of SeniorAssistant and Superintendent from the date on which his juniors werepromoted to the said post on the analogy of promotions of similarlysituated persons like Anjaiah and Mohd. Raziuddin with all consequentialbenefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following :

ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED)

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Judgment of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2058 of 2006, dated 31.10.2008 and memo No. 10711/CPR &RE/13-ZP/2002 dated 24.11.2004 issued by the Commissioner for PanchayatRaj and Rural Employment, A.P. Hyderabad and the orders ofGovernment in Memo No. 12651/Estt.V/05-3, PR&RD, dated 3.3.2006 asillegal and contrary.

O.A. was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 praying the Tribunal to call for the records relating to the impugnedMemo No. 10711/CPR.& RE/13-ZP/2002 dated 24.11.2004 issued by theCommissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment and the orders ofGovernment in Memo No. 12651/.Estt. V/05-3, PR&RD dated 3.3.2006and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the O.A that theapplicant retired as a Junior Assistant in Mandal Parishad, Mahadevpur,Karimnagar District. His case is that some of his juniors were promotedas Senior Assistants from 6.10.1994 and further as Superintendents witheffect from 13.10.1999. It is also stated that he was under suspension oncertain financial irregularities in the Mandal Parishad, but however,reinstated into duty on 14.3.1997. He was not considered for promotion,even after his reinstatement on the ground of pendency of disciplinaryproceedings and his juniors were promoted and continued in the higherpost of Senior Assistants and Superintendents. It is further stated thatsome of the persons who were promoted, were also facing thedisciplinary proceedings at the time of their promotion. The applicant claims that some of the other persons, who were facing the disciplinaryproceedings were promoted but he was not promoted. Hence, hepreferred O.A.

Arguments

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent therein submittedthat the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant wereconcluded through the proceedings of the third respondent dated26.12.2000 imposing a penalty of withholding two annual gradeincrements without cumulative effect and, therefore, the increments, whichfell due from March, 1998 were not sanctioned.

The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record heldthat even assuming for a moment that in some cases individuals who arefacing the disciplinary proceedings were promoted in violation of theRules, it does not entitle the Applicant to seek parity with suchindividuals. His case is clear and he was rightly bye-passed forpromotion in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, whichultimately ended in a punishment. It held that there are no merits in theapplication and accordingly the O.A ended in dismissal. Aggrieved bythe same, the applicant-petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended thatthe Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the O.A. He also contended thatthe Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner made severalrepresentations to the respondents to consider his case for promotion tothe post of Senior Assistant and Superintendent on the analogy ofpromotions of similarly situated persons and the said representationswere ultimately rejected by the impugned proceedings and therefore,there was no delay in ventilating his grievances before the Tribunal.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

As observed by the Tribunal the petitioner case is based onnegative equality stating that when some of the individuals, who werealso facing the disciplinary proceedings were promoted, he was notpromoted. Further, the claim of the petitioner in so far as the promotion tothe post of Senior Assistant is concerned, the promotions of his juniorstook place in the year 1994 and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to question the promotions effected in 1994 belatedly after his retirementfrom service. The Tribunal rightly held that though in some casesindividuals who are acing the disciplinary proceedings were promoted inviolation of the Rules, it does not entitle the applicant to seek parity withsuch individuals. As seen from the record, the case of the petitioner wasrightly bye-passed for promotion in view of the pendency of thedisciplinary proceedings, which ultimately ended in a punishment. Therefore, we see no error in the order impugned in the Writ Petitionwarranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs.

_____________________________

GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

______________________________

B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, JDt. 24.12.2008KA

------ REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Rajand Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, AndhraPradesh, Hyderabad.Pradesh, Hyderabad.

3 The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Karimnagar.

4. 2 CC to G.P. for Services II, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad 5.2CD copies