WP/25356/1995 of B.NARAYANA Vs SUB-COLLECTOR. KURNOOL on 10 November 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCHTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NO : 25356 of 1996

Between:Mohinder Singh, s/o. Late Sardar Teja Singh, Resident of H.No. 1-30-140,Sainagar, M.D.Farm, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad- 15.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 Union of India, rep by its Director General of E.M.E. (E.M.E. Pers)Master General of Ordinance Branch, Army Head Quarters , New Delhi -110001. Master General of Ordinance Branch, Army Head Quarters , New Delhi -110001.

2 E.M.E. Centre, Bhopal, Represented by Brigadier, Bhopal.

3 The Chief Record Officer, E.M.E. Centre, Records, Secunderabad,Hyderabad.

.....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 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly onein the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rdRespondent in issuing Letter No. 1506/C-2/2 (M.P.), 02, 31 dt. 19-2-1996as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and set-asidethe same and consequently direct the Respondents to consider thePetitioner for the promotions to the Rank of Subedar, Major on par with hisjuniors, and pass.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.KRISHNA

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY(ASST SOLICITOR GEN)

The Court made the following Order:

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the actionof the third respondent in issuing the letter dated 19-02-1996 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of naturaljustice, to set aside the same and to consequently direct therespondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to therank of Subedar Major. Promotion to the rank of Subedar Major isa relief consequential to the petitioner’s request to have the orderdated 19-09-1996 quashed being accepted by this Court.

In the proceedings dated 19-02-1996, several personsincluding the petitioner were informed that they were due to retire andthat the papers were being transferred to the pension establishmentto ensure payment of their pension. What is under challenge, ineffect, is the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner fromservice pursuant to the proceedings dated 19-02-1996.

Sri S.G.Poornachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,would contend that if the petitioner were to be promoted to the rank ofSubedar Major, he would then be entitled to two additional years ofservice, which would require his services to be extended tillFebruary, 1998.

Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for theCentral Government would, on the other hand, rely on the avermentsin the counter affidavit to contend that even if the petitioner had beenpromoted as Subedar Major it would make no difference to his date ofretirement and that, even on promotion, he would have had to retireon reaching the age of 55 years as contemplated in the proceedings dated 19-02-1996. Learned standing counsel would contend that,since the petitioner has not questioned the action of the respondentsin denying him promotion except by way of collateral challenge, thequestions regarding the procedure in which selections, to the rank ofSubedar Major, were held in the year 1995, whether or not the annualconfidential reports of the officers for the said year were taken intoconsideration are all wholly irrelevant to the relief sought for in thiswrit petition.

I find considerable force in this submission of Sri M.GangaRao, learned standing counsel appearing for the Central Government.What is under challenge in this writ petition is the age ofsuperannuation of the writ petitioner. Since it is not in dispute thateven on promotion there would have been no change in his age ofsuperannuation, and since the action of the respondents in notpromoting him to the rank of Subedar Major is not directly underchallenge in this writ petition, I see no reason to examine thecontentions raised by the petitioner regarding the manner in whichselections, to the rank of Subedar Major, were held in the year 1995.

The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

_______________

19-03-2008

usd

To

1 The Director General of E.M.E. (E.M.E. Pers) Master General ofOrdinanceOrdinance Branch, Army Head Quarters, Union of India, New Delhi - 110001.

2 The Brigadier, E.M.E. Centre, Bhopal, Bhopal.

3 The Chief Record Officer, E.M.E. Centre, Records, Secunderabad,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.

4 The CD copies