Telangana High Court
The A.P.Power Generation Corporation ... vs Mr.K.Srinivasa Reddy on 18 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Writ Appeal No.1174 of 2025
Order:
Heard Mr. Srinivasa Srikanth, learned Standing Counsel
for the appellants-Telangana State Power Generation
Corporation Limited (TSGENCO) and Mr. K.Kiran, learned
counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
2. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment
dated 26.03.2025, passed in W.P.No.32747 of 2012.
3. The petitioner availed Extraordinary Leave (EoL) for five
years to work abroad under specific conditions with effect
from 15.08.2001 till 31.05.2006 in terms of Regulation 19 of
the APSEB Leave Regulations and TOO.Ms.No.8
dated 09.04.2001, which prescribed conditions to be satisfied
while availing EoL by the employees of TSGENCO. The
conditions allowed the employee to undertake employment
during the period of EoL. It also stipulated that such period of
::2::
absence will not be construed as a break in service. It will not
be counted for service benefits such as increments, pay,
leave etc. On return from leave, the employee shall not claim
any preference over others in his parent unit for promotion or
higher pay by virtue of the experience gained in foreign
employment. After re-joining and on completion of five years'
service in the organization excluding the period of EoL, the
petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Divisional
Engineer on 20.08.2009, Thereafter, the petitioner approached
the writ court in 2012 seeking to treat the period of EoL
from 14.08.2001 till 31.05.2006 as qualifying service for
promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer on par with his
juniors. He also prayed for restoration of his seniority in the
cadre of Divisional Engineer by treating the EoL period as
qualifying service with all consequential benefits. By the
impugned judgment dated 26.03.2025, the writ court allowed
the prayer. Being aggrieved, the TSGENCO has preferred this
appeal.
::3::
4. On behalf of the appellants-TSGENCO, reference is
made to APSEB Engineering Service Regulations (for short
'the Regulations'), which prescribe the method and
qualification for promotion from one category to the next
category and class. The appellants have relied upon Regulation
6(a) thereof, which prescribes the qualification for promotion
to the cadre of Divisional Engineer from the cadre of Assistant
Divisional Engineer. It requires rendering of service as
Assistant Divisional Engineer for not less than
(a) five years, if recruited by transfer or (b) six years, if recruited
directly including a year spent on training. The appellants
contend that having remained on EoL for five years and
undertaken employment overseas, petitioner did not render
qualifying service as an Assistant Divisional Engineer for being
considered for promotion. The petitioner's seniority otherwise
was not changed in the Assistant Divisional Engineer cadre.
But he could have come in the zone of counting five years of
::4::
service in the year 2009. Therefore, such promotion was
granted to him, which he accepted and later on challenged it in
the year 2012. Learned writ court, therefore, committed error
in granting the relief.
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the
employer does not suffer any disadvantage as the leave
regulation permitted employment abroad, during which period
the employee also gained experience. Once the period of EoL
cannot be treated as break in service, the consequent benefits
of promotion for counting the qualifying period of service as
per Regulation 9(A) of Regulations would stand fulfilled in the
case of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned writ court has
rightly granted the relief.
6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the
parties and the relevant materials referred to and placed on
record, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's seniority
could have remained unaffected in view of the specific terms
::5::
and conditions of TOO.Ms.No.8 dated 09.04.2001 as the
period of employment abroad during EoL could not be treated
as break in service. But, the Regulation governing the
promotion consciously prescribes rendering of service in the
organization for five years, if recruited by transfer for being
eligible for promotion to the next higher stage. There is an
objective behind that. The employee gains experience by
rendering service in that particular cadre i.e., Assistant
Divisional Engineer in his parent organization. The employer
gets opportunity to assess his performance, which is also a
criteria to evaluate his candidature for the next higher
promotion. If the petitioner has been engaged in employment
overseas, these stipulations do not get satisfied. Even the
annual confidential records during those periods, for assessing
the character performance of the employee, could not have
been written by the employer. On fulfilling the five years of
qualifying service excluding the period of EoL, he was
promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer in the year 2009.
::6::
Three years thereafter, he preferred the Writ Petition, which
has been allowed by the learned writ court on erroneous
grounds. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere in the matter.
7. The impugned judgment dated 26.03.2025, passed in
W.P.No.32747 of 2012, is set aside. The instant Writ Appeal is
accordingly allowed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed.
____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
___________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 18.11.2025
LUR
