LawSphereX

K.Nagababu, s/o Gopalakrishna Murthy, v. The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Bench: HARINATH.N

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2024-07-12. K.Nagababu, s/o Gopalakrishna Murthy, v. The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak. Read the judgment...

Judgment text

-. 7 • V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION NO: 33216 OF 2012 Between: Sri Sri K. Nagababu, s/o Gopalakrishna Murthy,, Superintendent, Chandrasekhara Swamy Devastanam, Ch. Agraharam Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak, Road, Abids, Boggulakunta Hyderabad. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,, Revenue (Endts. I) Department, to Government. Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary 3. Sri N. S. Chakradhara Rao, Executive Officer,, Sri Maddi Anjaneya Swamy Devastanam, Guravayagudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 4. Sri B. H. V. S. N. Kishore Kumar, s/o Butchi Raju,, Executive Officer, Sri Kota Sattemma Ammavari Temple, Nidadavole Post and Mandal, West Godavari District. 5. Sri P.

Viswanadha Raju, s/o not known,. Executive Officer, Sri Parijatha Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari Districrt. ... RESPONDENTS that in the .. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the High Court may be Circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, direction, more particularly a writ in the pleased to issue a writ, order or the 1st respondent ie. - nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of considering the the Commissioner of Endowments, AP, Hyderabad in not his seniority and re case of the petitioner for further promotions by revising in conformity with the fixing the seniority on par with respondents 3 to 5 to law G. O. Ms. No. 262, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed lA NO: 1 OF 2024 circumstances stated in Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to petitioner in Writ Petition accept the additional material papers filed by the No.

33216 of 2012 in the interest of justice. LA. NO: 1 OF 2012fWPMP. NO: 42279 OF 2012) circumstances stated in Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to of Assistant STAY the promotions of respondents 3 to 5 to the posts Commissioners of Endowments from Executive Officer, Grade-1 by petition. Respondent No. 1, pending disposal of the main writ Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. M VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRI M SURENDRA RAO RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: SRI P V S S S The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010258272012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION NO: 33216/2012 Between: ...

PETITIONER K. Nagababu, S/o Gopalakrishna Murthy AND ... RESPONDENT(S) The Commissioner Of Endowments Tilak and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P V S S S RAMA RAO 2. M SURENDER RAO 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. while 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner a Junior Assistant in the establishment of Sri working as Chandrasekhara Swamy Devasthanam, Ch. Agraharam, West on 22. 10. 1994 Godavari District, was promoted as Senior Assistant HN,J ' 2 WP. No. 33216 2012 in the same Devastanam. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Sri Dhaneswai Ammavari Devastanam at Duvva Village, where he was promoted as Superintendent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner and the promotion extended to the post of Superintendent for the unofficial respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was in conformity with G. O. Ms. No.

262, dated 20. 05. 2002. The service of the petitioner along with respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is in the same category as per the G. O. Ms. No. 262. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were extended promotions in pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 262. However, when the issue of promotion for the petitioner was considered, G. O. Ms. No. 888, dated 08. 12. 2000, was applied illogically. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s service benefits, which include promotion, were denied by the illogical application of G. O. Ms. No. 888. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit along with additional material papers. It is submitted that the petitioners name is at serial No. 11 in the provisional seniority list of Superintendents working in Zone-ll as on 14. 12. 2021, indicating promotion to the cadre of Superintendent in another \ HN,J WP. No. 33216 2012 draws the parental Institute.

The learned counsel for the petitioner of the attention of this Court to the memos issued by Office dated Commissioner of Endowments Department-Respondent No. 1 initiated 20. 04. 2013, whereby the issue of disciplinary action to against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was dropped and reference than their the promotion extended to them in an institution other has parent department is also recorded. The Vigilance Officer observed that it is not justifiable to raise the query as to legality of in ah the promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as Superintendent also observed that Institution other than the parent institution. It is with effect there was no justification to find fault with the promotion for the other to the respondents and that they were also appointed post in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 262, dated 20. 05. 2002. Accordingly, of the show cause notice was dropped and further action for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was dropped.

The learned counsel petitioner submits that these proceedings were issued eleven years in the cadre ago and now the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are working of Deputy Commissioners and the respondent No. 5 is working as an Assistant Commissioner. X \ HN,J ' 4 WP. No. 33216 2012 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at the fag and of his service and denial of promotion is gross injustice to the petitioner. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner is still working as Superintendent on account of denial of promotion by extending the provisions of G. O. Ms. No. 262, as was done in the case of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It is submitted that employees were working in institutions other than parent institutions were promoted and instances of other employees who are at serial No. 5 and 17 were promoted as Executive Officer Grade-I are cited. 7. as As seen from the seniority list prepared by the respondent on 14. 12.

2021, the petitioner has been working as Superintendent from 01. 02. 2009 after being promoted, whereas the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were promoted in the year 2013. 8. Considering the issue that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were also promoted in an institution other than their parent Institution, the to the action of respondents in not extending G. O. Ms. No. 262 violation of petitioner has to be held as an act undertaken in gross the law in force. There is also no justification for extending his services G. O. Ms. No. 888 to the petitioner and discriminating 5. The compare'd>4o the services of the respondent Nos. 3 to HN, J WP. No. 33216 2012 with the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who complied 33 of requirements of the provisions of G. O. Ms. No. 888 Regulation G.

O defines a unit in each institution or endowment shall be a unit and the Rule for the purpose of recruitment, seniority and promotion in favour of 35 entitled the Commissioner may relax any of the rules any other persons or any class of persons for being appointed, otherwise by direct recruitment, to any office or of any post or of any be entitled person. As per the G. O. Ms. No. 262, the petitioner would There is to the next promotion as Executive Officer Grade-1. and 2. absolutely no assistance from the respondent Nos. 1 The 9. Counter of the respondent No. 3 is on record, him and his respondent No. 3 has narrated the service rendered by also promotion in the Department. The respondent No. 3 has and that submitted that the petitioner was suspended from service were filed W. P. Nos. 1604 of 2010, 2416 of 2010 and 8097 of 2010 of before this Court seeking payment of salaries and cancelation deputation against the orders of suspension etc. 10.

Be that as it may, those issues have been dealt by this Court in those writ petitions. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were against the petitioner was also dropped by the HN,J - 6 WP. No. 33216 2012 respondent No. 1. The respondents to consider the petitioner’s eligibility for promotion, the entire service record of the petitioner will be available with the respondent No. 1, and it is for the respondent No. 1 to extend the service benefits as extended to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by application of G. O. Ms. No. 262. 12. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to extend the same benefits as were extended to the G. O. Ms. No. 262 respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by applying the provisions of to the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall comply with this within a order and issue appropriate proceedings to the petitioner of the period of six (06) weeks from the date of the receipt representation by the petitioner.

There shall be no order as to costs. shall As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. SD/-K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECfON OFFICER To Boggulakunta 'l. The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak, Road, Abids, Hyderabad. . ^ r, Revenue 2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh,, (Endts. l) Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi 3. One CC to Sri. M Vidyasagar Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. M Surender Rao Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh. 5. Two CCs to GP For Endowments ,High Court Of Andhra [OUT] 6. One CC to Sri. P V S S S Rama Rao Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh [OUT]. 7. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra 8. Three CD Copies AL cc HIGH COURT DATED:12/07/2024 ORDER WP. No. 33216 of 2012 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.