Telangana High Court
R. Chandrahasa Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 13627 OF 2013
O R D E R:
Being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in
properly implementing the recommendations of the sub-
committee in favour of petitioner for granting notional
promotion to the higher scales and not extending the benefits to
which he is entitled, this Writ Petition is filed.
2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed as
Junior Assistant on 26.11.1966 in the 2nd respondent - State
Ware Housing Corporation, Hyderabad. During his tenure, he
worked at various stations in various cadres and ultimately,
retired from service as Secretary of the Corporation on
31.10.2006. While in service, due to anomalies in cadre
structure, petitioner is stated to have suffered loss of promotion
which resulted in loss of seniority.
It is stated, previously Junior
Assistant/Typist/Junior Steno are equivalent cadres in the
Scale of Pay of Rs.90-6-110-7-192 and Senior
Assistant/Godown Keeper are of the scale of Rs. 140-9-230-10-
280; Junior Steno, the post of which was equal to Junior
Assistant/Typist had avenue of being promoted to the post of
Senior Steno-cum-PA to MD/P.A. to Chairman which is
equivalent to Grade-III Warehouse Manager/Superintendent/
Accountant which was in the scale of pay of Rs.200-12-320-60-
400. Whereas Junior Assistant has to cross Sr. Asst.post to
reach a post equivalent to Sr.Steno. The grievance of petitioner
is that one Sri C.Raghuaram Murthy and Sri E.Prasad Rao who
were Junior Stenos and juniors to petitioner in the cadre of
Godown Keeper/Junior Assistant/Junior Steno were irregularly
given promotion to the post of Senior Steno/PA to
M.D./Chairman of the 2nd respondent Corporation overlooking
the intermediary cadre of Senior Assistant/Godown Keeper.
They were given double promotion at the first instance itself
while all others who were in the same cadre have got only one
promotion to the stage of Senior Assistant/Godown Keeper. The
staff Association and the affected individuals had made several
representations to the Government as well as the 2nd
respondent for rectification of the anomalies. At last, in 1997,
recommendations were made by the Sub-Committee which was
constituted for the said purpose. However, the benefits of the
same were not given for the persons who have been adversely
affected, including petitioner. According to petitioner, he is
entitled for grant of notional benefits for the period prior to the
date of recommendations of the sub-committee. But however,
no positive action is coming forth from the side of respondents.
3. In the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is
stated, the employees of the Corporation are governed by the
Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Employees'
Regulations, 1965 and the amendments made thereon from
time to time. Any amendment/modification made to the said
Regulations shall come into force from the date of its
publication in the official Gazette. As such, giving promotions to
the employees of the Corporation are also covered by the said
Regulations in force at a particular point of time.
It is further stated, petitioner having completed
about 40 years of service in the Corporation, retired on
31.10.2006 from the position of Secretary on superannuation,
which is the top-most post in the Corporation services. This
respondent had taken objection stating that after 6 ½ years of
his retirement, petitioner chose to knock the doors of this Court
to get redressal of his alleged grievances stated to be occurred
during his early career i.e. in 1974 and 1975, questioning the
action of the Corporation while giving promotion to certain other
employees to the post of Senior Steno-Cum-P.A. to M.D. from
the post of Junior Steno, in accordance with the provisions of
the said Regulations in force. It is stated, petitioner did not
question/challenge the specific orders at the first instance with
which he was aggrieved that too within the reasonable time
limit, if the said orders were presumed to be issued in
contravention of the Regulations in force. Hence, the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is further stated that the Board of the
Corporation in their 117th meeting held on 28.12.1995 have
constituted a Sub-Committee to go into the administrative
structure, channel of promotions, pay scales of the employees of
the respondent Corporation below the category of Warehouse
Manager Grade-II and make suitable recommendations to the
Board within two months. The said Committee had
meetings/deliberations and accepted the representations from
the employees' union and finally, submitted its report which
was placed before the Board of Directors of the Corporation
which approved the suitable changes/modifications to be
carried out to the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing
Corporation Employees Regulations, 1965 based on the report
of the Sub-Committee. The changes/modifications thus
proposed got the previous sanction of the Government of
Andhra Pradesh and eventually, published in the Official
Gazette Part-II on 15.08.2002 at pages 1200 to 1211.
It is stated that petitioner, on the one hand,
contending that the lacuna prevailed then was illegal and
contrary to settled cannons of service law and on the other, on
the same analogy, praying for implementation of the above
changed rule with retrospective effect and give him the notional
promotion by drawing a combined seniority of Junior
Assistants/L.D. Stenos., etc., (though the petitioner belong to
the general cadre) with retrospective effect with all
consequential/monetary benefits on par with the promotions
given to the technical cadre post i.e. Sr. Steno-cum-PA to
M.D./Chairman from L.D. Stenographer to Sri C. Raghurama
Murthy(since retired on 30.4.2003) and Sri E. Prasad Rao (since
retired on 31.3.2013) during 1974 and 1975 respectively, at a
very belated stage more particularly when no such provision is
available in the said Regulations at any point of time.
According to this respondent, petitioner was
promoted as Secretary directly (as per the rules prevailed then)
without first becoming/getting promotion as Manager (which is
re-designated as General Manager) at the HO (as prevailed now
w.e.f. 06.12.2007 i.e. after his retirement on 31.10.2006). Thus,
on one side, he got the benefit of the lacuna prevailed in the
rules at the time of getting the promotion as Secretary for which
the petitioner did not raise any objection while getting his
promotion as Secretary or tried to rectify such lacuna then only,
and on the other, he wants the benefit of lacuna prevailed in the
said Regulations during 1974 and 1975 while giving promotion
to certain employees belonging to other cadre from L.D.
Stenographer to Sr. Steno-cum-PA to MD/Chairman by
applying the same analogy and drawing combined seniority of
Junior Assistants/L.D. Stenographer, etc. in contravention of
the said Regulations prevailed at that particular point of time.
It is also stated that Sri E. Prasad Rao (since retired
on 31.3.2013), whose promotion as Senior Steno-cum-PA to
MD/Chairman from L.D. Steno during 1975, is being disputed
now by petitioner after he got promotion as Secretary. It is
therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. Petitioner filed rejoinder denying the averments in
the counter affidavit. It is stated, there occurred some illegalities
and anomalies at the end of the respondents for their own
lapses and latches, for which petitioner was made to suffer. It is
not out of place to mention here that admittedly, the sub-
committee submitted its report long back which was also placed
and accepted in the 125th meeting of the 2nd respondent held on
02/08/1997, but for reasons best known, publication in the
gazette was only made on 15/08/2002. However, the anomalies
were not properly rectified and the loss suffered by petitioner
was never mitigated. It is also stated that to get promotion to
the post of Warehouse Manager-III (equivalent post Sr.
Stenographer cum PA to MD), after being promoted to Godown
Keeper) equivalent to UD Stenographer) with effect from
23.09.1977, he had to wait for 11 years after the illegal
promotion of Sri.C.Raghuram Murthy. Had there been no
illegalities and anomalies, petitioner would have been promoted
to the post of Warehouse Manager Grade-III 11 years earlier.
The averment of the respondent that petitioner did not object to
his promotion as Secretary during August 2005, without
becoming General Manager is not a sound reasoning inasmuch
as he was the senior most at that point of time and to save Sri
E. Prasad Rao who was the other incumbent promoted as St.
Stenographer cum PA to M.D/Chairman illegally, he was placed
above petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Chavali
Ramanand relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in Shaik Ahmmad v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 1 and contends that delay or laches in
approaching the Court may not always be considered as fatal to
the legitimate claim of the aggrieved person. The facts and
circumstances of each case would determine, to deny or not to
deny the claim based on the plea of laches / delay.
6. Sri A. Phani Bhushan, learned Standing Counsel for
the Corporation submits that the action of respondents does not
2023(6) ALD 225(A.P.)(DB)
require any interference at the hands of this Court, he therefore,
seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. Having considered the respective submissions and
perused the record, it may be noted that though the posts of
Junior Steno and Junior Assistant/Typist were of equivalent
rank at the time of appointment, in view of the anomalies that
arose due to non-existence of intermediary posts to Junior
Stenos, they obtained faster promotions than Junior
Assistant/Typists. The Sub-Committee specifically constituted
to address these concerns in various cadres, including Junior
Stenos and Junior Assistants, made recommendations in May
1996 to grant higher scales as that of Junior Stenos, while
making similar recommendations to other cadres of the
organization. The recommendations were approved by the Board
in August 1997. Petitioner was in service at the relevant time of
recommendations in May 1996 and he retired from service after
a decade i.e. in 2006, and he filed this Writ Petition in 2013 i.e.,
after seven years of retirement; thus, there is a delay of 17
years.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Shaik
Ahmmad's case (supra), it is to be noted that petitioner therein
was not accountable for the delay. However, in the instant case,
the very constitution of Sub-Committee in 1996 was to examine
the anomalies in promotion channels and pay scales of various
cadres and petitioner herein who is on the aggrieved side of the
fence alleging that Junior Stenos have bypassed an
intermediary step (equivalent of Senior Assistant) and directly
jumped up to the post of PA to MD and there is huge pay
difference, has no reason to commit delay in seeking any benefit
accruable due to Sub-Committee recommendation. It is not the
case of petitioner that he was not even aware of the sub-
committee recommendations of 1996, or that he was not
permitted to make application for the benefit at the relevant
time. There is no plausible explanation from him as to why such
inordinate delay of 17 years has occurred in seeking alleged
monetary benefits on account of non-implementation of sub-
committee recommendations in his case. Mere delay/laches
would not disentitle the legitimate rights, however, that does not
mean that petitioner can seek the benefit/remedy at his own
convenience without regard to the reasonableness of the delay.
9. It may be noted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that a delay of three to four years would be a reasonable period,
and any period more than that would require satisfactory
explanation. In the instant case, petitioner, except venting out
the grievance of anomaly in pay scales and double promotions
obtained by other cadres, nothing is placed on record to show
the steps he has taken to bring to the notice of authorities his
eligibility and entitlement to the benefits under the Sub-
Committee recommendations, and requesting to provide the
benefits at the relevant time. In the absence of such due
diligence on the part of petitioner, raising the issue of anomaly
and non-implementation of Sub-Committee recommendations in
his case, after a lapse of 17 years, does not merit consideration.
10. Further, as stated by the Secretary of the
Corporation, in the counter, petitioner on the one hand, got the
benefit of the lacuna prevailed at the time of getting promotion
as Secretary for which he did not raise any objection and on the
other, he wants the benefit of lacuna prevailed in the said
Regulation during 1974 and 1975 while giving promotion to
certain employees belonging to other cadre from L.D.
Stenographer to Senior Steno-cum-PA to MD/Chairman by
applying the same analogy and drawing combined seniority of
Junior Assistants/L.D. Stenographers, etcetera in contravention
of the said Regulations prevailed at that particular time. In fact,
E. Prasad Rao was promoted as Senior Steno-cum-PA to
MD/Chairman from L.D. Stenographer in 1975 and now
petitioner has been disputing the same in 2013 and meanwhile,
he was promoted as Secretary in 2008.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of
the considered view that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed,
and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
12. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
21st April 2025
ksld
