High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the orders dt.7.11.2012 in O.A.No.9484 of 2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently selaside the same. ...RESPONDENTS LA. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 50581 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of the orders dt.7.11.2012 passed in O.A.No. 9484 ot 2008 by the Hon'ble A.P.A.T. pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR HMWSSB Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI K. RAJENDRAN Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.39228 OF 2015 ORDER: (Pcr t{on'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

07.1"1.2012, passed in O.A.No.9484 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short,'the Tribunal')

2. Heard Sri f. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Mc'tro Water Supply ancl Sewerage Board (HMWSSB), appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. Raiendran, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1'

3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 was appointed as a Technical Work Inspector with the petitioners on

72.07.199'1, on consolidated pay. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was appointed as Manager (E) oide proceedings, clated 20.05'2003. While so, wherr the case of respondent No.1 was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (E) and the same was rejected oide proceedings, dated 14.08.2008, respondent \ I 2 AKS,J & ETD,J w.P.No.39228 of 2015 No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A. The Tribunal, oide impugned order, dated07.11.2012, was pleased to set aside the proceedings, dated 14.08.2008, and directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 for notional promotion as Deputy General Manager (E) from the next day on which he completes 5 years of service as Manager(E), instead of 10 years, with all consequential benefits, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

4. Leamed Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that respondent No.1 is possessing the qualification of Diploma in Engineering and as per Regulation No.8 of HMWSSB Service Regulations (for short, 'the Regulations'), to get promotion as Deputy General Manager (E), one has to complete 10 years of service. Then only he can become eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (E). However, the said Regulation was amended uide 8.P.No.133, dated 04.07.201L, whereby, the minimum service was reduced from -10 years to 5 years. 3 AKS,J & EID,J W P.No.39228 of 2015

5. Learned Stancling Coulsel appearing for the petitioners had further contendecl that it is the case of respondent No.1 that the benefit of saicl amended Regulation should be extended to him. But, the said amendment is having prospective effect' Therefore, the question of considering the case of respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Deputv General Manager (E), on completion of 5 years of service, would not arise' As per the earlier Regulation, one must put in 10 years of service' Therefore' the case of respondent No.1 would be considered only on completion of 10 years of service. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dak'd 07 I1.2012.

6. On the other harrd, learned counsel for respondent No 1 had contended that the amendment made oide B.P'No'133, dated

04.07.2017, does not state that the said amendment has prospective effect. \{henever a Regulation is amended, it comes into force from the original date of Regulation' The amended Regulation No.8 of the Regulations, whereby, minimum service I 4 AKS,J & ETD,J w.P.No.3922a of 2015 of 10 years was reduced to 5 years, should be extended to every person. Admittedly, in the instant case, the benefit under the said amendment was not extended to respondent No.1. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No.1 and that the Tribunal had rightly directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 for notional promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (E) on completion of 5 years of service with all consequential benefits. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is Iiable to be dismissed.

7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that when Regulation No.8 of the Regulations was amended oidt B.P.No.133, dated 04.07.2011, whereby, minimum service of L0 years was reduced to 5 years, the benefits under the said amendment should be extended to all the employees, including respondent No.1. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified ln allowing the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No.1 and the r --:: T7 f AI(S,J & ETD,J \I'.P.No.39228 of20l5 Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to extend the benefits under amended Regulation No.8 of the Regulations responc'lent No.1 and consider the case of respondent No.1 for grant of notional promotion as Deputy General Manager (E) on completion of 5 vears of service. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 07.71.2012.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed AS SD/.V. KAVITHA GISTRAR //TRUE COPYII To '! One CC to SRI T.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR HMWSSB iOpUCl

2. One CC to SRt K.RAJENDRAN, Advocate tOpUCi 3. Two CD Copies OFFICER PSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:2710112025 ORDER WP.No.39228 of 2015 I I ( /4: :) L).'+ iAr4 t' v ? o )) t 01 i(Afl 2[25 D €.-apAlC DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS