Telangana High Court
K.Krishna Swamy vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.6454 OF 2017
ORDER
In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioners are seeking a declaration
that the action of the respondents in not creating promotional channel to
the Superintendents worked/working in the office of the 2nd respondent
right from 15.02.2003 and in not promoting the petitioners in the said
posts from the date they are eligible to such promotional posts as illegal,
arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9643-44 of 1995 dt.07.11.2001 and
consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioners in the
posts that are to be created with effect from 15.02.2003 and to refix the
pension of the petitioners notionally on the date on which they retired
from service and to pay arrears to them and to pass such other order or
orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR)
are that the petitioners were all appointed as Typists / Junior Assistants
in the office of the 2nd respondent and later were promoted to the posts
of Senior Assistants and further promoted to the posts of
Superintendents. All of them retired as Superintendents from the office
of the 2nd respondent in the years 2008 and 2009. It is submitted that as
per the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder, there are 5
categories of posts in the Endowments Department and Category 5
consisted of two Classes and the post of Assistant Commissioner comes
under Class-I thereof. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, the post of Assistant
Commissioner shall be filled (i) by direct recruitment of a person who
has not less than 3 years of practice as an Advocate in the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh; or (ii) by promotion from the category of
Superintendent or Special Category Stenographer in the Endowments
Department; or (iii) by promotion of Executive Officer Grade-I; or (iv)
by transfer of a person who has been holding an equivalent post of
Assistant Commissioner in any of the Charitable or Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments established under Clause (a) of Section 6
of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 including a person in the service of Tirumala
Tirupati Devasthanams. It is submitted that Note (2) of Rule 3 of the
Rules gives an illustration as to how the vacancies are to be filled up in
the ratio prescribed therein between the Superintendents and the Special
Category Stenographers. According to the petitioners, they were fully
qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the
vacancies reserved for Superintendents/Special Category Stenographers
working in the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department,
Hyderabad. However, they were not promoted to the said post before
they attained the age of superannuation, even though their cases were
considered a number of times right from 2005. It is submitted that a
number of promotions were given to the post of Assistant
Commissioner. However, the category from which the petitioners are
claiming for promotion has not been considered for promotion even
though the Special Rules were not amended. It is submitted that except
for the category of the petitioners in the Endowments Department, all
other categories of employees were considered and promoted and on
enquiry, they were informed that a Circular U.O. Note
No.44232/B/SPF.A/2002 dt.15.02.2003 was issued by the GAD and
therefore, the petitioners were not considered for promotion. It is
submitted that as long as the Rules were permitting the
Superintendents/Special Category Stenographers working in the office
of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad to get
promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner, the respondents
cannot rely upon the Circular Memo of the Government dt.15.02.2003
for not giving promotions and therefore, challenging the same, the
present Writ Petition (TR) has been filed.
3. It is submitted that the U.O. Note dt.15.02.2003 was issued
directing all the Departments of the Secretariat and Heads of
Departments to stop appointments by transfer of Section
Officers/Assistant Section Officers, Superintendents, etc., working in
the Secretariat and Heads of Department Officers to the Executive cadre
post localised under the Presidential Order in the Districts till further
orders and these orders were issued pursuant to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dt.07.11.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos.9643-44 of
1996 (V. Jaganadha Rao and others Vs. State of A.P. and others reported
in (2001) 10 SCC 4010). It is submitted that in the last paragraph of the
said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "it would
be in the interest of administration to have a channel of promotion for
every service so as to avoid stagnation at a particular level subject to the
condition that the incumbents of a service are otherwise qualified to
shoulder the responsibility of the higher promotional post." However,
the respondents have not provided the channel of promotion and have
not responded to the several representations made by the petitioners.
However, after retirement of the petitioners in the years 2008 and 2009,
the respondents have issued G.O.Ms.No.42, Finance (SMPC)
Department, dt.22.02.2010, whereunder eight (8) posts of
Superintendents and one (1) post of Special Category Stenographer in
the office of the 2nd respondent were upgraded to that of Gazetted
Superintendent/Gazetted Special Category Stenographer which is
equivalent to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, in the
time scale of Rs.9285 - 21550 and pursuant to the said upgradation,
certain Superintendents were appointed as Gazetted Superintendents and
such persons were juniors to the petitioners. Therefore, according to the
petitioners, they were eligible for promotion, but for the U.O. Note
dt.15.02.2003, they were not promoted and since G.O.Ms.No.42
dt.22.02.2010 has been issued, the case of the petitioners also should be
considered for upgradation and consequential benefits notionally and
fixation of their pension in higher posts. Initially, the petitioners filed
O.A.No.6590 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad. However, on abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was
transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. (TR) No.6454 of 2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the submissions
made in the Writ Petition (TR) and prayed for notional promotion and
notional benefits at least from the date on which the posts were
upgraded and the juniors were promoted to the said posts.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, on the other hand,
relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted
that the Writ Petition (TR) is not maintainable as the State of Telangana
is not responsible. It is submitted that the petitioners had retired in the
years 2008 and 2009 in the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the
records would be available with the State of Andhra Pradesh and the
petitioners would have to make the 'State of Andhra Pradesh' as
necessary party to the Writ Petition (TR) and the State of Telangana is
not responsible for the same. Further, it is also submitted that the relief
claimed by the petitioners is against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V. Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh and others 1. It is submitted that the U.O. Note
dt.15.02.2003 was issued pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V. Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State
(2001) 10 SCC 401
of Andhra Pradesh and others (1 supra) and the petitioners were not
given promotions thereunder. It is submitted that juniors were not
promoted vide G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010, but their posts were
upgraded and since the petitioners had retired prior to such date, the
benefit of G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010 cannot be granted to the
petitioners. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of
West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others 2.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that though the petitioners were eligible for promotion
to the posts of Assistant Commissioners from the category of
Superintendents/Special Category Stenographers in the Endowments
Department, they were not promoted consequent to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V. Jagannadha Rao and
others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (1 supra). It is also not
in dispute that the U.O. Note dt.15.02.2003 was issued in compliance
with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners are
only seeking promotion on par with their juniors who were granted
2024 INSC 906 : Civil Appeal No(s). of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). of 2024
Diary No.43488 of 2023 dt.27.11.2024.
benefit under G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010. However, the learned
Government Pleader for Services-I has clearly pointed out, and it is also
admitted by the petitioners in the Writ Petition (TR), that the juniors
were not promoted but the posts themselves were upgraded and the
persons who were working in the said posts at the relevant point of time
were given the benefits of upgraded post. As held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Bengal and others
Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others (2 supra), promotion only becomes
effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not
on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation.
Since the petitioners were Superintendents before the upgradation of the
posts, they are not entitled to the retrospective financial benefits
associated with the upgraded post of Gazetted Superintendents or
Gazetted Special Category Stenographers. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioners are not eligible for upgradation of the post
prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.42 in the year 2010. Further, this Court
is also in agreement with the contention of the learned Government
Pleader that since the petitioners retired in the years 2008 and 2009, i.e.,
before bifurcation of the State, they would have grievance against the
Government of Andhra Pradesh and not against the Government of
Telangana.
7. The Writ Petition (TR) is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition (TR)
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 25.03.2025
Svv
