Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
K. Manohar Rao and another - Petitioners
Versus
TSRTC and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 22618 of 2013
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and 16(1) - APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 - Regulation 30 - Promotion - Entitled to be regularized - Direct respondents to treat date of regular promotion of petitioners to post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) with effect when petitioners have become eligible for promotion- Held, It is every clear that an observation has been brought on record by Officers concerned holding very clearly that injustice has been done to 2nd Petitioner since there were clear vacancies in Audit Wing, but however, same had been delayed and only reason as per counter affidavit para 9 is preoccupation of Respondent No.3 due to which selection committee could not be convened - Court opines that Petitioners services had been regularized and had been delayed since 2009 and same though resulted in violation of Petitioners Fundamental Rights of being considered for promotion at right time thereby Petitioners had been deprived of their Fundamental Right of Equality before Law and equal protection of Laws extended by Article 14 of Constitution of India and said action of Respondents is manifestly arbitrary - Writ Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for TSRTC.
2. The Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the office order No.E3/255(25)/2011-KRZ dated 17.06.2011 of the 3rd respondent to the extent of not regularizing the services off the petitioners in the feeder post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) from the date of their initial promotion under Reg.30 of APSRTC Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1966 from 2009 as unjust, illegal and contrary to APSRTC Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1966 and contrary to Circular No.PD-47/2010 dated 09.09.2010 and consequently direct the respondents to treat the date of regular promotion of the petitioners to the post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) with effect from June 2010 when the petitioners have become eligible for such promotion.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows :
(b) Even though the said directive issued by the 1st respondent is binding on 2nd and 3rd respondent, the petitioners to the post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) under Reg.30 of APSRTC Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1966 instead of regular promotion. The petitioners were working as Dy. Superintendent (Audit) from 04.06.2009 and are entitled to be regularized as Dy. Superintendent (Audit) from 04.06.2009.
(c) The petitioners are seniors to the Respondents No. 4 and 5 in Finance Department due to delay in regularizing the services of the petitioners in the post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) and have become juniors in the feeder post of Superintendent (Audit).
(d) The petitioners have submitted representation to 3rd respondent requesting to promote them to the post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) as several juniors to the petitioners are promoted subsequent to the post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit).
(e) Though representation were given to the 3rd respondent, no action had been taken to promote the petitioner on regular basis as to the post of Dy. Superintendent (Audit) and further the petitioners have request to promote the post of Superintendent (Audit).
(f) The respondents have purposefully delayed the regularization of the petitioners in the posts Dy. Superintendent and Superintendents (Finance) Wing and in other departments.
(g) The 3rd had further delayed the regularization of petitioners as Dy. Superintendent even from the date of their promotion under regulation 30 of APSRTC Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1966. The 3rd respondent issued an office order vide office order No.E3/255(25)/2011-KRZ dated 17.06.2011 regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from 17.06.2011.
(h) The 1st petitioner has submitted a representation dated 15.03.2012 to 1st respondent to consider regularization in the post of Dy. Superintendent from the date of promotion under Regulation 30 of APSRTC Employees (Retirement) Regulation, 1966 i.e., 05.06.2209 but the representation of the 1st petitioner had not been considered.
(i) The Director (Vigilance & Security) upon the representation of the 2nd petitioner had directed the 2nd respondent to redress the grievance of the petitioner and to report compliance vide letter No.Dir(V&S)/114(22)/11-KZ dated 18.06.2011 but no action had been taken by 2nd and 3rd respondent.
(j) In view of the delayed regularization of the petitioners to the post of Dy. Superintendents, the petitioner could be promoted to the next higher post of Superintendent (Audit) with effect from 30.06.2012. The 3rd respondent without considering the representation of the petitioner to pre-pone the regularization in the post of Dy. Su
SupremeToday
All similarly situated employees are entitled to identical promotion benefits unless exceptions like delay or acquiescence apply, emphasizing the need for equal treatment under service law.
Promotions take effect from the date granted, not from the date of vacancy, and retrospective seniority cannot be assigned.
Adverse reports if are expunged or if not as per the rules, and the time has run out for affirming or rejecting the same by the authority as in the present case, the same shall not be a reason to den....
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, but there is no absolute right to promotion itself, which becomes effective only upon assumption of duties.
The benefit of a judgment can be extended to non-parties if they are identically placed and the judgment is not restricted to operate in personam. Exceptions to this rule include laches, delays, and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and seniority cannot be granted retrospectively when an employee was not born....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
