Dr.S.Raj Kumar v. State Of Telangana

Betw een:

1. Dr. S. Raj Kumar PETITIONERS And

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government of Telangana State, Labour, Employment & Training, and Factories Dept., Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad, and others. RESPONSENTS

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian) Seeking implementation of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

2.

Heard Mr. P. Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for services (Telangana) and Mr. C. Srinivas Baba, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3.

The petitioner filed O.A.No.5260 of 2015 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to consider his case for promotion to the post of Director of Insurance Medical Services. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application, to the following effect. "In the light of the findings on the points, and keeping in view the fact that the applicant in O.A.No.4671/2015, has retired from service w.e.f. 31.05.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation, both the OAs are dismissed. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, the official respondents are directed to finalize the seniority list of the special grade Civil Surgeons as and when the final allotment in terms of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act is completed and by following the law governing the subject and the special rules vide G.O.ms.No.

183 Health Medical and Family Welfare (Q1) Department dt.4.5.1996 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.8 Labour Employment Training and Factories (IMS) dt.30.01.2004, promote the eligible special grade Civil Surgeon to the post of Director, IMS, subject to seniority, eligibility and suitability, without loss of any further time." 4.

Seeking a direction to implement the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner came up with the above writ petition. 5.

It appears that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the papers were called for and a DPC was actually convened on 28.11.2016. But to the misfortune of the petitioner, the DPC did not meet due to various reasons with which we are not now concerned. The petitioner

reached superannuation on 30.11.2016 and retired. On the date of retirement he has submitted a representation at least to give him notational promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that at least that representation may be considered, in view of the supervening events. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks.

6.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN _______________________ JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD 1st December, 2016 Js.

Date: 01-12-2016 Js.