Telangana High Court
B. Aruna vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 2 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.21402 of 2021
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents dated 29.07.2021 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for fixing her pay on par with her colleagues/batchmates w.e.f 21.04.1990 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently to set aside the proceedings dated 29.07.2021 and the proceedings dated 18.08.2021, communicating the same to the petitioner and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for fixing of pay on par with her batchmates and consequently as entitled for monetary benefits and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner has participated in the Group- II examination for the vacancies in the Group-II (A-Service) and when she was not selected for the said service, she has 2 approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.2150 of 1990 for providing employment to her under the 30% reservation for women candidates. When she was successful in the O.A, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderbad, further vide Letter No.1394/SA/2/95, dated 20.06.1996 allotted her to the post of Cooperative Sub-Registrar against the fallout vacancy of OC(W) of Group-II A Services 1990 in Zone-V as Non-Local Candidate. Consequently, the petitioner joined her service as C.S.R in the office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 19.08.1996.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for regularization of her services from 1990 along with her batchmates in terms of G.O.Ms.No.100, A & C Dept., dated 03.04.2001, which was issued in favour of one similarly place person, Sri D. Venkatswamy. After considering her request, orders were issued fixing her seniority at Sl.No.396(a) below Sri K. Krupakar Reddy, whose seniroity No. was 396 in Zone-V and who was the last candidate to join in 1990 batch without the 3 roster point. Accordingly, order for regularisation of the services for petitioner, CSR w.e.f 21.04.1990 was issued.
4. The Government has also issued the consequential orders dated 08.04.2005 in Rc.No.15488/200-E9. Thereafter, the petitioner has made another representation seeking fixation of her pay on par with her batchmates, who joined in the year 1990, but vide proceedings dated 29.07.2021, the said request has been rejected and communicated vide proceedings dated 18.08.2021, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ affidavit and submitted that there was no basis for not granting the pay fixation, when the petitioner was granted seniority on par with her batchmates.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others Vs. Sh. Rakesh Beniwal and others in W.P.(C).No.7423 of 2013, C.M.NO.15903 of 2013 dated 04.08.2014, in support of his contentions that where 4 the delay in appointment and the consequential denial of benefits is the direct corollary of the inaction of the employer, consequently, the employer cannot take advantage of its own delays in declaring the results and issuing appointment letters to deny promotion to the employee.
7. Learned Government Pleader for services, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and supported the impugned order dated 29.07.2021.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that there is no reason attributable to the petitioner for the delay in issuing the appointment. The Government has issued the appointment letter consequent to the direction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and thereafter, the Government has also taken a decision to grant Notional Seniority to the petitioner on par with her batchmates. Having granted the seniority on par with her batchmates, the petitioner is also entitled to seek pay parity and also consequential benefits on 5 par with her batchmates. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 29.07.2021 and 18.08.2021 and directs the respondents to grant the Notional fixation of pay of the petitioner on par with her batchmates and also grant all other consequential benefits.
9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date:02.04.2024 TU