S. Janardhan Rao vs Northern Power Distribution Co Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6434 Tel

Telangana High Court

S. Janardhan Rao vs Northern Power Distribution Co Of ... on 12 November, 2025

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                            AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN


                     I.A.No.1 of 2025
                          in/and
              WRIT APPEAL No.1232 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Sri M.Mehdi Hussain appears for

the appellant.

Sri A.Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for

Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana

Limited, appears for the respondents.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on

the prayer for condonation of delay of 1204 days in

preferring this appeal against the impugned judgment

dated 17.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.4226 of 2004.

3. The appellant has taken the plea of death of his

mother on 20.06.2023 and other works and also medical

ground of he being the heart patient. He has undergone

clinical test of CT Coronary Angiogram on 21.04.2025 and

advised rest. When he recovered, he filed this appeal with

a delay of 1204 days, which is neither wilful nor

unexplained.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant was aggrieved to prefer the writ petition by the

part of the order of the respondents whereby his

suspension period was treated as dies non, though the

penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative

effect was imposed. The appellant retired on 20.06.2003.

Immediately thereafter, the appellant preferred the writ

petition in the year 2004, which stood decided in June,

2022. On the appellant's representation, vide memo dated

09.06.2023, the period of suspension has been treated as

"on duty" instead of "dies-non". The respondent No.1 -

Chairman and Managing Director, also gave instructions to

pay the salary and allowances to the appellant for the

period from 01.07.2002 to 07.05.2003 duly adjusting the

subsistence allowance already paid to him for the above

period. The consequential benefits, if any, arose out of

treating the period of suspension as on duty have also been

ordered to be paid. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the delay may be condoned. The appellant

may be allowed to make a representation for

reconsideration of his penalty.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

opposed the prayer.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

upon consideration of the grounds urged, we are not

satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for

explaining the delay of 1204 days in preferring the instant

appeal. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the

appeal on the grounds of delay.

7. The interlocutory application is, therefore, dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

______________________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J 12.11.2025 vs