G. Hanmantha Rao v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.5599 of 2019 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- " ..... to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to Charge Memo No.045/ VC(1)/ 2016 dated 28.1.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to principles of natural justice and also declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre i.e. Superintending Engineer without reference to the Memo No.3291/ VC(2)/ 2006 dated 18.3.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent and Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.670 dated 30.6.2012 issued by 1st respondent and Charge Memo No.045/ VC(1)/ 2016 dated 28.1.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent ....." .

Heard Mr.M.Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. It has been contended by the petitioner that he is working as Executive Engineer and he is fully eligible and qualified to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not considering his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on the ground that charge memos dated 18.03.2009, 30.06.2012 and 28.01.2017 are pending against him. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the State Government has framed guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 to consider the cases of employees for promotion against whom disciplinary proceedings/ criminal proceedings are

pending. As per G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, the competent authority must consider the cases of employees against whom disciplinary proceedings/ criminal proceedings are pending and pass appropriate orders as to whether they are eligible for promotion. But, in the instant case, the respondents are not considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Therefore, learned counsel for petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and pass appropriate orders.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents has contended that the case of the petitioner will be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and appropriate orders would be passed.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 19-03-2019 Prv