Setty Ranga Rao, Adilabad Dist. 18 ... vs C M.D., Singareni Collieries Ano.
2022 Latest Caselaw 862 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 862 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

Setty Ranga Rao, Adilabad Dist. 18 ... vs C M.D., Singareni Collieries Ano. on 23 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



              WRIT PETITION No.3453 of 2012

ORDER:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     Learned counsel for the petitioners has straightaway

drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment

dated 24.12.2013 passed in W.A.No.2361 of 2003.                             The

operative paragraphs No.37 to 40 of the said judgment are

reproduced as under:-

            "37.     It is apt to state that provisions relating to
     promotion often provide for a time bound promotion
     scheme which is also referred to as Selection Grade.
     Such a scheme is generally adopted to mitigate hardship
     of stagnation in service, e.g., when the opportunities of
     getting promotion to the higher grades are not likely to
     be available for years for various reasons including lack
     of adequate posts in the higher grades compared to the
     proliferation of posts in the feeder categories.                Such
     schemes,      therefore,    usually    provide     that    on    the
     completion     of a     particular     period of       service, the
     employees concerned will move to a higher scale but not
     a higher post (See Samaraditya Pal On Law Relating to
     Public Service, 3rd Edn., Lexis Nexis, page 593).
            38.      Barring    the    efforts   of   the    respondent

Company that initial promotions were given erroneously,

and that subsequently in view of the complaints received from other departments, the said system had been put paid to, the voluminous material brought on record clinchingly shows that all along the appellants had the benefit of time-bound promotions subject to the maximum cap on cadre strength. As such, in the first place, in WA No.503 of 2000, while remanding the matter the earlier Division Bench has never observed, and thus foreclosed any discussion, that the promotions shall be subject to the availability of vacancies, and, ipso facto, the observations of the learned Single Judge Judgment in his judgment, dt.14.10.2003, that the promotion to the appellants shall be subject to the existence of identified vacancies cannot be sustained.

39. For the foregoing reasons, the Judgment, dt.14.10.2003, of the learned Single Judge in WP No.25133 of 1997 is hereby set aside, and consequently, the respondent Company is directed to consider the case of the appellants for promotion on time-bound scheme, subject to other eligibility criteria to be fulfilled, save the issue of availability of vacancies.

40. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

Another important aspect of the case is that the SLP

preferred against the aforesaid judgment has already been

dismissed.

Resultantly, the present writ petition also stands

allowed and the judgment in W.A.No.2361 of 2003 dated

24.12.2013 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the

present case also. The petitioners shall be entitled for all

the benefits flowing out of the judgment in W.A.No.2361 of

2003 dated 24.12.2013.

Let a copy of the judgment passed in W.A.No.2361 of

2003 dated 24.12.2013 be kept on record in the present