M. Jithendar Reddy v. 1. The Deputy lnspector General of Police

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER n THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2834 OF 2019 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Narasimha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationer and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner aporoached the Court seeking oraver as under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not communicating the order oF notional promotion of the petitioner in the category of Inspector of Police with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted to the said post i.e. 30- 12-201,0 to him while showing the notional date of promotion in the rectified seniority list of Inspector of Police in Rc.No. 1483/El-293/HR/2015-16, dated 13- t2-2O16 and thereby not extending the consequential benefits of increment and also Special Grade Scale in the category of Inspector of Police at the right time is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust. violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for extension of consequential benefits of notional promotion in the category of Inspector of Police with effect from 30-12- 2010 with all attendant benefits including releasing of annual grade increment and special grade scale at the right time of granting notional promotion to the petitioner and pass... " ! i 2 SN,J W-P-No..2a34 of 2019

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief. as oer the averments rrrade in the affidavit filed bv the petationer in suooort of the oresent Writ Petition is as under: i) The petitioner was appointed as Sub-inspector of Police in 2001 and was due for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police along r,vith his batch-mates in 2010. Horvever, the promotion of the petitioner was deferred due to the imposition ,rf a Censure punishment, which was later set aside by the Government on 22.11.2011. ii) Althouglr the petitioner was promoted in 2012, he was not granted the consequential benefits of notional promotion, including senrority, special grade increments, and other related benefits with effect from the year 2010. iii) The pet tioner made several representations seeking rectifications of petitioner's seniority and !trant the consequential benefits, but these were not fully considered, owing to perrding correspondence between the States. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3 SN,J w.P.No.2834 of 2019

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The relevant oortion of the impuqned order vide Memorandum No.567lE1-82/HR/2017-tA dated nc ()7 2ol R s<rrerl hv t h r eqnn da n No.1 tnt h oetitioner herein is extracted hereunder: "Sri M.lithender Reddy, Inspector of Police (Civil) of Hyderabad Range now working in CID on deputation basis has submitted a representation for issue of notional seniority and consequential benefits. The contents of the representation of Sri M.lithender Reddy, Inspector of Police (Civil) of Hyderabad Range now working in CID on deputation basis has been examined with relevant rules and Chief Office instructions. It is informed that, the name of Sri M.Jitender Reddy was considered by the DIG, Hyderabad Range at the time of rectification of seniority llst Inspector of Police (Civil) and assigned rectified notional date to the applicant in the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) w.e.f. 01-09-2010. The Final rectified seniority lists of (3) Ranges of Telangana State including Hyderabad Range were sent to the DGP, AP, Hyderabad, with a request to send the same along with Final Seniority Lists of (4) Ranges of Andhra Pradesh State for approval of the Government of AP who is the cadre controlling authority in consultation with the Government of Telangana. Hence, without approval of the sald seniority list, no action will be taken on the consequential benefits on the rectified notional date of the individuals. Therefore, the request of the above individual is examined and disposed off. " 4 sN,l W.P.No.2a34 of 2019 B) The av oetitioner in- suooort of the present writ pr:tition in araqraDh Nos.6 and 7 are extracted hereunder; *6. It is relevant to submit that my batch-mates who were r(rcr rited along with me to the post of Sub Inspector :f Police during 2001 were promoted lo the post of Inspector of Police during the year 2010. However, my candidature was not considered at that time on th : ground of punishment of Censure pending. I submit that the Government finally issued orders setting aside the 1;unishment of Censure imposed on me on 22- 11-2011. :onsequently, the authorities ought to have reviewerl r1y promotion and confer me promotion to the post of In;pector of Police along with my batch mates from 201t) onwards. I submit that I was actually promoted to the said post of Inspector of Police only in 2012 afte - setting aside the punishment of Cr:nsure though I am legally entitled for such promotion during the year'2C10 itself. I submit that the respondents have not taken any action to review my case for conFerring promotion to the post of Inspector of Police along with my batch-inates since the punishment on which my case was earlier deferred. was already set-aside by the Governme rt.

7. I strbmit that I made a representation to :he I't respondeni on 25-3-2017 duly informing that I 'r'ras not given any consequential benefits and I was not placed at correct position on par with my batch-matcs and requested to issue notional seniority on par with my batch-rnat:s in order to claim Special Grade increment and its (:orrsequential benefits in the rank of Inspector of Police etc. It is relevant to submit that the 1 respondent issued rec:ified final seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) of hlyderabad Range from the panel year llt72-73 to 2010-1,. vide Rc.No. 7843/EL-293/HR/2015-16, dated 13-12-2016 wherein my name was placed for the panel year 2010 -11 at Sl.No. 14 by giving notional seniority on par with nry junior. Thus the authorities have conferred a 5 SN,J W.P.No.2834 of 2019 me notional seniority only for the purpose of including my name at appropriate place but was not extended the consequential benefits of such notional seniority without any justification or reasonable cause." c) The relevant Dortion of the letter of the Dv. InsDector General of Polic , Zone-VL Charminar vide Rc.No.267./E L-LG I HR I 2019-15 dated L7.O9.2025 aAd reccad t.r flra Garrar ent pleader for Hom (Services-f ) is extracted hereunder: "The process of rectification of the seniority lists of Hyderabad Range. Hyderabad City and Warangal Range was completed by the DGP, Telangana upto the panel year 2010-11 Le 1998 batch Sls(Civil) only and communicated vide GOMs.No.151 Home(Ser-1) Dept, dt:5.10.2018 in suppression of Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.34 Home(Ser-1) Dept, dt:22.2.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 HomeSer-1) Dept dt: 78.7.2014." D) The relevant oortion of the counter affidavit filed on behalf glthe respo[dents is extracted hereunder; ".....The petitioner is belongs to 2000 batch SI of Hyderabad Range. The name of petitioner may be considered at the time of preparation of seniority list Inspector of Police (Civil) and the petitioner may be assigned notional date in rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) on par with his batchmates and he may be issued all the consequential benefits as per Government Orde rs. " DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: i 6 SN,J W.P.No.2834 of 2019 It is tl- e specific case oF the petitioner that the 5. petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated

25.03.2011 to the respondent No.1. In Fact, respondent No.l issued a rectified final seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) of Hyderrabad Range, from the panel year L972-73 to 2010-11, vide Rc.No.1B43lEt-293/HRl20I5-16 dated

13.L2.2016, wherein the petitioner's name was placed for the panel year 2010-11 at Sl.No.14, granting the petitioner notional seniority on par with his junior

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner's batchmates, who were appointed as Sub Inspectors of Police in 200L, were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in 2010. However, the petitioner's candidature was not considered at that time on the ground of pending Censure punishment. The Government ultimately issued orders setting aside the Censure punishment imposed on the petitioner on

22.ll.2OLL. Oonsequently, the respondent authorities ought to have reviewed the petitioner's promotion and granted him promotion to the post of Inspector of Police, along with his batchmates, with effect from the year 2010. Nevertheless, ./ sN,l W.P.No.2834 of 2019 the petitioner was promoted to the said post only in 2072, after the Censure punishment was set aside, although the petitioner was legally entitled to such promotion in 2010 itself .

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that, although the authorities conferred notional seniority on the petitioner for the pu rpose of placing the petitioner's name at the appropriate position, the consequential benefits of such notional seniority were not extended to the petitioner without any justification reasonable cause.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and the letter vide Rc.No.267lE1-16lHR/2019-15 dated L7.O9.2025 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, addressed to the Government Pleader for Home (Services-I), High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, particularly paragraph No.5, contends that the subject issue relates to \ S SN,J W.P.No.2834 of 2019 assignang nol:ional seniority on par with peititaoner's junior consequent to the setting aside of the Censure punishment vide G.O.Rt. No.1873, Home (Ser-III) Dept, date(l 2z.LL.zOLtt hence, a separate representation has to be made by the petitio,ner, and based on t.hr: records and eligibility criteraa, further action will be taken in assigning notional seniority upon the petitioner addressing such represerrtation to the respondents, who will duly consider the rlligibility criteria and examine the relevant records.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had requested the respondents several timr:s orally and also submitted a reprl3sentation dated 25.03.2017, which was even acknowledged by the office of the Lleputy Inspector General of Police, Telangana State, in Marcir 2017 indicating that the petitioner specifically requested the ,rssignment of notional seniority on lrar with his fellow batchm ates, as well as the grant of special grade increments anJ other consequential benefits in the rank of Inspector of P,)lice, in order to do justice to the petitioner's case. Therefore, the petitioner contends that there is no t I sN,J W.P.No.2834 of 2()19 necessity to again approach the respondents regarding the first representation and the pleas put forth by the respondents are contrary to rendering justice to the petitioner, and hence, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

10. A bare perusal of the record, in particular the office memorandum vide Rc.No.567lE1-82/HR/2017-LB dated 13.07.2018, clearly indicates that the petitioner's representation was examined and disposed of by informing the petitioner that the final rectified seniority list oF Inspectors of the three Ranges of Telangana State, including Hyderabad Range, were sent to the DGP, AP, Hyderabad, with a request to forward the same along with the final seniority list of the four Ranges of AP State for approval of the Government of AP, which is the cadre-controlling authority, in consultation with the Government of Telangana. Hence, without the approval of the said seniority list, no action can be taken regarding the consequential benefits of the rectified notional seniority of the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the fact as borne on record that the petitioner's request for consequential benefits and increments is still l0 SN,J W.P.No.2834 of 2019 pending approval of the subject seniority list, this Court opines that respondent No.3 is bound to consider the prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, as it is not disputed even by the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. It is clearly borne on record that respondent No.1 issued the rectified final seniority list of Inspectors of Police (Civil) o' Hyderabad Range from the panel year 1972- 73 to 2010-11, vide Rc.No.14B3lE1-293/HR/2015-16, dated L3.12.2016, wrerein the petitioner's name was placed for the panel year 2010-11 at Sl. No.14, granting petitioner's notional seniority on par with his junior and although these proceedings are on record, as of now, the consequential benefits of such notional seniority have not been extended to the petitioner rvithout any justification or reasonable cause.

11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made bv the learnell counsel aooearino ol behalf of the petitioner and tl'p learned I I I 1l SN,J W.P.No.2834 of 2019 I I Assistant Government Plea er for Home, aooearinq on behalf of the resoondents. The writ oetition is allowed as oraved for, and the respondents are directed to consider the reouest of the Detitioner vide the oetitioner's detailed reoresentation dated 25.O3.2OL7 addres d to the Deoutv InsDector General of Police, Hvderab ad Ranoe, Hvderabad, dulv takino into consideration the fact, as borne on record, that the resoondent authorities had conferred notional senioritv to the Detitioner bv olacino the Detitioner at Serial No.14 for the panel year-2o1O-11 on oar with petitioner's junior vide proceedinqs dated 13.12.2016, however, the oetitioner was de D rtved of the benefits of increments and other consequential benefits arisino out of the said notional seni o rttv. as clearlv indicated in the memo vide Rc.No.567lE1-82lHR/2O17-18 dated O5.O7.2018 of the tnspector General of Police. West Zone, Hvderabad, which stated that the same is \ oendino aooroval of the Governm e nt of A.P.. the ca d re- n f rarllin rr rr rthnr fv rn co ncrrlfrlian rerilh Govern m ent (lf Te e n (lA n a nd the Resoondent No.3 is 1 I \ 1? SN,J W.P.No.2:834 of 2019 directed to take aopropriate action after._obtainino I f h entorl a onformitv with the D ci oles {)f natural the eti on oersonal hr:aring and oass aooropriate reasorrgd orders pertainano to the soecific reouest of the peti.[ioner for extension of the conseou ntial benefits ol' notional e Dromotion in the cadre of Inspector of Police with effect from 3O.12.2O1O, includinq all attendan! benefits such as relear;e of annual orade increments ar.!d soecial orade scale from the d te of orant of notional Dromotion, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date gf receipt of a copv of this order, arnd dulv communicate the decision to the petitione,r herein, I However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall st.and closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER of Pcil d Range, Hyderabad Telangana, I To 1 2 I The Deputy lnr;pector General of Police, Hyd The Director General and lnspector General Hyderabad. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Telangana, Home Department, 4. Two CCs to GF, FOR HOME, High Court for the State of 5. One CC to SRI P.NARASIMHA, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copie:; Hyderabad. [OUT] -felangana SA PVL u- C.(,.TODAY -E ,/I*c*' i-,. tr i! ,i) 'J'- a \9Ss.r,.rcf'f \::::::-;-' JA\ r:\ .',' 1 ,./ HIGH COURT DATED:24109112025 ORDER WP.No.2834 of 2019 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. cx< I I I