Telangana High Court
WP/16995/1999 of V.Udaya Bhaskar, Vs The Managing director, on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16995 of 1999 Between: V. Udaya Bhaskar … Petitioner AND The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER,TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16995 of 1999
Between:
V. Udaya Bhaskar
… PetitionerANDThe Managing Director,APCO, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.… Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy Counsel for the respondent : None This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.16995 of 1999
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:-
This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to directthe respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotinghim to the post of Salesman/Assistant Manager from the post ofAssistant Salesman with effect from 09.08.1991 with all attendantbenefits.
The petitioner was appointed as ‘B’ Grade Salesman ofHyderabad region on 19.04.1978. He was transferred toVijayawada region in the year 1981 and to Karimnagar, which is apart of Hyderabad region. The grievance of the petitioner is thathe was not promoted when his juniors were considered andpromoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the year1991 and that he was promoted only in the year 1994 with effectfrom 25.05.1994. When the petitioner filed WP.No.11998 of 1998,the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 13.11.1998permitting him to make a representation to the respondent anddirected the respondent to consider the same. In pursuance of thesaid order, the impugned memo has been issued.
At the hearing, there is no representation for the respondent– Corporation. No counter affidavit is available on record.
A perusal of the impugned memo shows that the petitioner’sjuniors were promoted in the year 1991, whereas he was promoted only on 25.05.1994. The only reason given therefor is that whenthe Departmental Promotion Committee considered thecandidature of the eligible employees, the petitioner was undersuspension and that as per the procedure in vogue, an employeeunder suspension will not be considered and accordingly thepetitioner’s case was not considered for promotion. It is furtherstated that subsequently in the year 1994 the DepartmentalPromotion Committee met for consideration of the names of thecandidates eligible for promotion and accordingly the petitionerwas promoted.
In my considered view, the reasons given in the impugnedmemo are wholly lopsided. The respondent has not cited anyservice regulation under which an employee under suspension isliable to forego his claim for promotion from the time when hisjuniors were promoted, after revocation of suspension. Unlessunder the service regulations an employee, who suffered apunishment, is disentitled to claim promotion for a specifiedperiod, mere non-consideration of the case of the employee forpromotion on the ground of his being under suspension at the timeof consideration, would not deny him the benefit of retrospectivepromotion on par with his juniors after the suspension is revokedand the employee has not suffered any punishment. Theimpugned memo was passed in the year 1999 and it is not thecase of the respondent that after the revocation of suspension ofthe petitioner in the year 1991, he suffered any punishment duringthe interregnum period between 1991 and 1994 when the petitionerwas promoted as Assistant Manager. Therefore, the petitionerought to have been promoted with effect from the date on whichhis juniors were promoted.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Therespondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner forpromotion with effect from the date on which his immediate juniorwas promoted as Assistant Manager. It is needless to state thaton such promotion, the petitioner shall be entitled to all thebenefits of such promotion. The respondent shall consider andpass appropriate orders within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.
Conclusion
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the mannerindicated about, WPMP.No.21113 of 1999 filed by the petitioner forinterim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J