Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ponguleti Dashmantha Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 August, 2024
APHC010327192021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 20437/2021
Between:
Ponguleti Dashmantha Rao, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAGHAVAN K THALAPAKA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. D VENKATAIAH
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
".... to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners representations dated 06 07 2020 and 24 2 2020 without regularization in any cadre and without any y promotion for the last 23 years contrary to the absorption Proceedings in vide A2/CRg28/2017/296 dated 30 07 2019 issued by the 2nd respondent herein in the sanctioned post of redeployed employee of allwyn w e f 30 11 2005 and the service of the petitioners petitioners has regularized in terms of G O Ms No 2091 dt30 11 2005 with assigned pay scale vide G O Ms No 180 dated 28 4 1993 and in terms and guidelines issued the G O Ms No 77 Industries and Commerce PE Cell Department dated 20 06 2009 for not regularized the petitioners services into the APBCL Cadre in accordance with the government orders is highly illegal arbitRaory unconstitutional violation of Principles of NatuRaol Justice and in violation of Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently 1 direct the 2nd respondent to implement the absorption Proceedings vide A2/CRg28/2017/296 dated 30 07 2019 for regularized and promote the services of the petitioner on far with the regular APBCL Employees on par with consequential benefits ii direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners representations dated 06 07 2020 and 24
2 2020 for not regularization in any cadre and for promotion to the cadre of APBCL Regular Employees and to pass...."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein joined in the year 1999 as Graduate Engineer Trainee as per the qualification of B.E. (Mechanical), on 23.10.1989, in erstwhile M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, after completion of Probation period was confirmed in the post of Assistant Engineer with a basic of Rs.1925/- in the time scale of Rs.1925-2915 in the year 1991. Out of the 1486, surplus employee of M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, some were redeployed to the erstwhile APBCL. The petitioner herein, surplus employee of M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Limited was redeployed to APBCL in supernumerary posts. They were holding the posts of Joint Executives in M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Limited and they were continued in the very same posts by way of creation supernumerary posts in APBCL and continued in the same pay scales. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 24.03.2003, after due consideration of the report of the Committee of officers and the modifications suggested by the Cabinet Sub-committee on Services formulating special scheme for the redeployed employee of erstwhile M/s. Hyderabad Allwyn Limited in pursuance to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was relived from M/s Hyderabad Allwyn Limited and directed to report before the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited, Hyderabad on 03.05.1993 for posting orders and joined thereon 03.05.1993 and reported, and the petitioner was given as Assistant Manager and there onwards, the petitioner is working as Assistant Manager (I/C), Junior Executive and Depot Manager (I/C), till now without taking a single promotion. As per the said Govt. Orders, the petitioner would have been given pay in the time scale of Asst. Manager instead of that, the petitioner has been given corresponding scales in the Jr. Executive cadre in Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, right from joining to till now and the petitioner suffered with huge financial loss in the form of pay. So many representations have been submitted to the head Office to rectify the anomaly, no orders have been received so far. But The employees of erstwhile Hyderabad Allwyn Limited aggrieved by the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 24.03.2003 and G.O.Ms.No.337, dated 17.11.2003 (pay fixation in the present Govt. Departments/SLPEs) filed Ο.Α.Νο.6243/2004 and batch challenging the paras 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) (a), 10(4) (b), 10(5), 10(6), (10(7), 10 (8) in G.O.Ms.No.87 and paras 4(1), 4(2), 4 (5), 4(8), 4(11), 4(12), 4(13) in G.O.Ms.No.337, dated: 17.11.2003 and the Hon'ble APAT in its orders dated 12.09.2008 and batch set aside the above paras and directed the 1st respondent i.e., Secretary to Government. Hence the present writ petition.
3. The respondent No.1 has not filed any counter affidavit.
4. The counter affidavit is filed by the respondent No.2. While denying all the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that Vide Lr.No.A1/130/95/10842 dated 31-01-2011, the Corporation submitted clarification that out of (03) Junior Executives of Hyderabad Allwyn Limited allotted to the Corporation, (01) individual is resigned and (02) Employees are continuing. To absorb the (02) Junior Executives of Hyderabad Allwyn as per the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 26-02-2009, it is proposed to create (02) Assistant Manager posts and (01) Assistant Manager post to fill the vacuum created due to resignation of (01) Allwyn Employee. Thus the Corporation requested the Government to create (03) posts of Assistant Manager (Ops) in the pay scale of 3310-6840 (PRC-1993), to absorb the services of (02) Junior Executives of erstwhile Allwyn Limited. As stated by the petitioner the relevant posts of Junior Executive Engineer is not available in the APBCL. Hence, the proposals were sent to the Government for creating (03) post of Assistant Manager (Ops), by suppressing (03) posts meant for Allwyn redeployed employees, to enable the corporation to absorb the (02) redeployed Junior Executives of Hyderabad Allwyn Limited, who have been allotted to APBCL, in pursuance of the orders of the Industries and Commerce Department, vide G.O.Ms.No.77 dated 26-02-2009. The orders of the Government are awaited in this regard. It is further stated that consequent to bifurcation of the State, the corporation was split into (02) entities i.e., APBCL and TSBCL with effect from 01-06-2014 and the posts were allocated between the (02) organizations in 58:42 ratio. Accordingly the three sanctioned posts meant for Allwyn Redeployed employees were allotted at the rate (02) Nos. to APBCL and (01) No. to TSBCL. In view of the above changes after bifurcation, vide Lr.No.A1/130/95 dated 14-06-2010, the Government was requested to create (02) posts of Assistant Manager (Ops), by suppressing the (02) posts meant for redeployed Allwyn employees, instead of (03) Nos. proposed earlier. It is further stated that, the contention of petitioner for not regularizing his services and considered him for promotion at the time of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in the panel year 2018-19 is not correct as the petitioners cadre was shown as Allwyn Redeployed Employee in the cadre strength of APBCL and absorbed in the Corporation as Redeployed Employee only in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2091 dated 30-11-2005 and he is drawing pay and allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.180 dated 28-04-1993, in the absence of specific orders from the Government sought by the Corporation vide Lr.No.A1/130/95/10842 dated 31-01-2011. In view of the above facts, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard Sri Raghavan K Thalapaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through Video conferencing; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri D.Venkataiah, learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition, whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader also reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit.
7. Considering the submissions and on perusing the material on record, it is observed that, as per the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, the proposals sent by the 2nd respondent are pending before the 1st respondent, but so far the 1st respondent has not taken any decision in this regard. Further, the 1st respondent has not filed counter in this matter though the matter is filed in the year 2021 and that the 1st respondent has not complied with Rule 12(1) of the Writ Rules to file the counters within stipulated period. Therefore, for filing of counter affidavit by the 1st respondent is hereby forfeited.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that, directing the 1 st respondent to take final decision with regard to the proposals sent by the 2 nd respondent to consider the representations dated 6.7.2020 and 24.02.2020 submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same and pass appropriate reasoned orders within a period of three (03) months from the d ate of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. .
10. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 22 -08-2024 Gvl HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.20437 of 2021 Date : 22.08.2024 Gvl