Smt.M.Sugnana Mani, W/O. Late P.Nageswara Rao, v. The Municipal Commissioner,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No. 5651 OF 2016 Date: 03.03.2016 Between:

Smt. M.M. Sugnana Mani, East Godavari District.

..... Petitioner And:

The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, and others.

.....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Srinivasulu Reddy For Sri V.R. Avula Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Ancha Panduranga Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: GP for Services (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ petition is filed feeling partly aggrieved by order dated 30.07.2013 in O.A.No.589 of 2013 with V.M.A.No.490 of 2013 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), to the extent the petitioner has not been granted monetary benefits.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent No.1.

The petitioner is appointed as Junior Assistant in the office of respondent No.1 - Corporation on 25.01.2010 on compassionate grounds by respondent No.1. Her services were regularised under proceedings dated 04.08.2012. Respondent No.2 sanctioned five Upper Division Revenue Inspector (U.D.R.I) posts to respondent No.1 - Corporation in the month of July, 2012 and in pursuance thereof, respondent No.1 has issued orders for filling up of the five posts. The petitioner's name was shown at Sl.No.5 in the list of eligible candidates to be promoted as U.D.R.Is. As she was not given promotion in spite of inclusion of her name in the seniority list, she has filed the aforesaid O.A before the Tribunal.

On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit was filed in the O.A wherein it was inter alia stated that legal notice was issued by a Junior Assistant working in respondent No.1 Corporation alleging that the petitioner does not belong to S.C (Mala) as she was a Christian; that the issue relating to the social status of the petitioner was referred to the Municipal Standing Counsel for his legal opinion and that the Legal Advisor has opined that in view of the serious allegations relating to the caste status of the petitioner, it is appropriate to request the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry (Urban) to issue Caste Certificate and accordingly, a letter was addressed to the Collector, Special Officer, East Godavari District, on 07.09.2012 to decide the genuineness of the certificate produced by the petitioner. It was further averred that as

reply was awaited from the District Collector, East Godavari District, promotion of the petitioner was deferred; that subsequently, the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, passed a resolution on 07.09.2012 promoting the four other candidates excluding the petitioner and that thereafter the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry, has addressed letter dated 14.06.2013 to respondent No.1 wherein he has informed that his enquiry has revealed that the petitioner belongs to SC (Mala) community and that her caste certificate is genuine.

Considering the above noted facts, the Tribunal has directed respondent No.1 to promote the petitioner as U.D.R.I against the post earmarked for SC (W) with a further direction that the petitioner shall be granted notional promotion on par with the other U.D.R.Is without any monitory benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for no fault on the part of his client, she was denied the benefit of promotion from September, 2012 and that therefore, she is entitled to monitory benefits.

We are afraid. We cannot accept this submission. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that for a genuine reason, namely, a bona fide dispute with respect to the caste status of the petitioner, her promotion was withheld. Ordinarily, an employee is not entitled to monitory benefits for the period during which he/she has not discharged duties of the post in respect of which monitory benefits are sought. Except in cases of patent negligence or mala fides denying the benefit of promotion, the employee cannot claim such benefits as of right. On account of the delay in her promotion, the petitioner is adequately compensated with the benefit of notional seniority. On the facts of this case, the petitioner is not entitled to the monitory benefits. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal in not granting monitory benefits to the petitioner for the period during which she has not worked as U.D.R.I.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.7180 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

_____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J _____________________________ ANIS, J Date: 03.03.2016 va