The state cannot apply service rules retrospectively to deny promotion to an employee whose services were regularised before the rules came into force, especially when such denial constitutes discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees who were granted the same promotional benefits.

ORDER :

Harinath. N, J.

1. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2024. W.A.1039 of 2024 was filed by the 1^st respondent, and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing. The respondents were permitted to file a detailed counter on both facts and law for adjudication of the writ petition on merits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Devasthanam, Ch. Agraharam, West Godavari District, was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 22.10.1994 in the same Devastanam. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Sri Dhaneswai Ammavari Devastanam at Duvva Village, where he was promoted to the rank of 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 the 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 petitioner’s name is at serial No.11 in the provisional seniority list of Superintendents working in Zone-II as on 14.12.2021, indicating promotion to the cadre of Superintendent in other than the parental Institute. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the memos issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Endowments Department-Respondent No.1 dated 20.04.2013, whereby the issue of disciplinary action initiated against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was dropped, and reference to the promotion extended to them in an institution other than their parent department is also recorded. The Vigilance Officer has observed that it is not justifiable to raise the question of the legality of the promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as Superintendents in an Institution other than the parent institution. It is also observed that there was no justification for finding fault with the promotion with effect to the respondents, and that they were also appointed to the other post in terms of G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.05.2002. Accordingly, the show cause notice was dropped, and further action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 was dropped. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these proceedings were issued eleven years ago, and now the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are working in the cadre of Deputy Commissioners, and the respondent No.5 is working as an Assistant Commissioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at the fag end of his service and the denial of promotion is a gross injustice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is still working as Superintendent on account of the denial of promotion, in accordance with 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 working in institutions other than parental 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.

6. As seen from the seniority list prepared by the respondent as 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 y