WP/160/2003 of Ch.Vishnu Murthy Vs The Secretary on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

And

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 160 of 2003

Between:

Ch.Vishnu Murthy S/o. Ch.L.Narasimha Rao, Assistant Engineer in the Office of the Executive Engineer Inchampally Project Investigation Division No.1, under control of Superintending Engineer, Inchampally Project Investigation Circle, Hanamkonda.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Administrative Wing I&CAD Department, Government of A.P., Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

3 The Superintending Engineer, I&CAD Department, SRSP Stage II Circle, (Formerly Pochampad Investigation Circle) Subedari, Hanamkonda Warangal District.4 The Superintending Engineer, I&CAD Department, Inchampally Project Investigation Circle, Hanamkonda Warangal District.

5 B.Kumara Swamy, Deputy Executive Engineer, Sub Division No.5 of Division No.IV, SRSP I & QC, KC Camp, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certioraridirecting the respondent No.1 to give all notional benefits to the petitioner on parwith the Respondent No.5 namely Draughtsman Grade II with effect from 1/7/92Draughtsman Grade 1 with effect from 3/6/97 and treating the Asst. Engineer'sservice from 5/98 to this date as field service which require two years field servicecompulsory for Deputy Executive Engineer promotion in the category ofDraughtsman Grade I by relaxing the rules as relaxed in the case of RespondentNO.5 in the GO.Rt.No. 664 Irrigation & CAD Services IV Dept., Dt.10/03/2002 thepetitioner possesses the requisite qualification i.e., Diploma in Civil Engineering andpassed PWD officers subordinates Account Test with reference to the notionalpromotion as Draughtsman Grade III given with effect from 3/6/83 as the case wasopened after prolonged correspondence of about 14 years accepting administrativemistake by the respondent No.2 herein in the proceedingsNo.PIC/Wgl/S1/EC1/131/34/m Dt.5/3/98 in compliance of the orders issued in APATHyderabad in OA.No.6701/97. However, the claim of the petitioner for promotion toDraughtsman Grade II was not considered as ordered by the APAT in their order inaccordance with seniority and no orders were passed. As the petitioner ranks seniorto Respondent No.5 in accordance with presidential orders on zonalisation of postsas per GO.Ms.No.564 GA/SPF.A/Dept Dt.5/12/1985 the petitioner comes underzonal post and deserves the Deputy Executive Engineer promotion with effect from13/6/2002.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO, AMICUS CURIAE.Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4: Government Pleader for Services-II.Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER: (per GB.J.)

The Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed by A.P. AdministrativeTribunal (for short Tribunal) in O.A.No.6701 of 1997, dated 16.12.1997.

2. The matter relates to promotion of the petitioner to the post of DraughtsmanGrade II and Grade I respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that as he wasunduly denied the promotion to the post of Draughtsman Grade II and Grade I,he approached the Tribunal on earlier occasion by filing R.P.No.6505 of 1997and the Tribunal disposed of the said R.P. directing the authorities to considerhis case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules.Considering the orders passed by the Tribunal, the authorities passed orderson 5.3.1998 promoting the petitioner to the cadre of Draughtsman Grade III withretrospective effect from March, 1983, but, however, the subsequentpromotions were not carried out and he submits that as his juniors continued tooccupy the higher post, he should also be promoted to the said post. Since hisrequest was not considered, he filed O.A.No.6701 of 1997. The Tribunal, afterconsidering the material available before it, rejected his case on the ground thatsince the post of Draughtsman Grade II and Grade I are confined to the Circlelevel post, petitioner cannot be given benefit to the post of Grade II or Grade I.Against the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Mr.J.R.Manohar Rao, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that as per thePresidential Order the post of Draughtsman Grade I, Grade II and Grade III fallwithin Zone V and the petitioner was working in the Circle under Zone V earlierto the Presidential Order, the projects were treated as separate unit, but afterthe Presidential Order came into being, the projects would fall within thepresidential zone. Therefore, the learned Amicus Curiae would submit thatirrespective of the Circles where the petitioner worked, they fall within onezone, and therefore his case has to be considered in accordance with theRules.

4. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that prior to 1981, the petitioner worked at various places and from 1985onwards he was working in the Circle within Warangal zone. He further submitsthat since the Circle in which the petitioner is working and the Circles in whichthe other unofficial respondents were working are different, his seniority couldnot be counted and for that reason the petitioner cannot claim the benefit ofpromotion.

5. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader.Since both the Circles fall under Zone V, the case of the candidates has to beconsidered on the basis of zonal seniority. But in the instant case there is timelag and on account of which number of persons appear to have been promotedto higher posts. Under those circumstances, we feel it inappropriate to disturbthe promotions already made. However, we direct the authorities to considerthe case of the petitioner basing on the zonal seniority and grant promotion, ifnecessary with retrospective effect, in accordance with the Rules, and thisshall be done without disturbing the candidates who were already promoted andworking in the respective zones.

6. With the direction indicated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

-------------------------------

(G.BIKSHAPATHY, J.)30[th] December, 2004.

-------------------------------

(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)SSR

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Administrative Wing I&CAD Department, Government of A.P., Erramanzil, Hyderabad. Government of A.P., Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

3 The Superintending Engineer, I&CAD Department, SRSP Stage II Circle, (Formerly Pochampad Investigation Circle) Subedari, Hanamkonda Warangal District. SRSP Stage II Circle, (Formerly Pochampad Investigation Circle) Subedari, Hanamkonda Warangal District.

4 The Superintending Engineer, I&CAD Department, Inchampally Project Investigation Circle, Hanamkonda Warangal District. Inchampally Project Investigation Circle, Hanamkonda Warangal District.

52 CCs to G.P. for Services-II, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT)

6 2 CD copies.

7 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.