V.Balarama Murthv. S/o...Sri v. Suryan aeyana, District Manager, Food

...RESPONOENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order of Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decrarig the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings no. e1130(11)/99 dated 16'1 '2002 in rejecting our representations for payment of arrears for the post of assistant managers W,e.f 25 6'1979 and for the post of Dy' Manager for the petitioners No.1 and 3 from '181 '1995 and the petitioner No' 2 from 24'6'1994 as illegal,arbitraryandunconstitutionalanddiscriminativeandconsequentlydirect the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners from the date of promotion as Assistant Manager W'e'f 25 6 1976 as was done in the case of petitioners juniors by office order No 231l96/Est l dt' 28 6 1 996 and also arrears for the post of Dy. Manager (Genl) with effect from the dates of petitioners promotions to that Post, IA NO: 10F 2025 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 pleased to bring the LRs viz., to bring the LRs viz., (1) Rajagopal Yadavalli and (2) Venugopal Yadavalli of the deceased late Y S S' Sastry' as petitioners 4 and 5 respectively to come on record as petitioners in the Writ Petition No"l2914 of

2002. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT'B'V'APARNA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents No'1to3 : SRI DANTU SRINIVAS' SC FOR FCI Counsel for the ResPondent No'4 : The Court made the following: ORDER '- r) THE HON'BLE SRI..IUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PEIITION No.t2914 0P 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: '...to issue a Writ, orde_r of Directio4 more particalarlg one in the nature of Writ o[ Mandamus a.LUr;rrg'ti" actton oJ tl.Le respondents in issu.ing proceedings No.E"1/3O(1l)/99 iated 1 6.1 .2OO2 in rejecting o.ur repreZenbtioni yor pagment of arreors for the post of Assistant Manog.r, *."-|. 25.6.1979 and- f:: !\ !"_o of Dy.Minaser 1", tn" pjittinZi'wo.t and 3 from 18.1.1995 and the pelitioner No.2 from 24.6.1994 as llgal, arbitrary qnd unconstitutional and discnminatiue and consequentlA direct the respondents to paA the anears of salary to the petittoners from the date of as Assistant Manager ut.eJ 25.6.1976 as uttts d.one in the case of petitionerc' juniors bg office order No.231/ 96/ Es;t.I d.t 28-6. j996 and atso anears for tte.fost of Dy. MaigeilC""U with effeit from the dates of petitioners piomotioi ti that post and. pcss-.. " 'pimotion

2. Heard Smt.B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and sri Dantu Srinivas, rearned Standing Counsel for Food Corporation of India, appearing for the respondents.

3. During the pendency of this Writ petition, petitioner No.1 passed away. Therefore, his sons, viz., petitioner Nos.4 arrd 5, were brought on record as his legal heirs to contest the matter uide order dated 24.01.2025 passed by this Court in I.A.No. 1 of 2025. I 2 PI(,J wp-12914-2002 l,earnecl counsel for the petitioners submits that 4. petitioners No.1 to 3 were appointed as Stenographers in the respondent ()orporation in the year 1965' Subsequently' they were promoted as Assistant Grade-l (Ministerial) in the year 1g74. While so, respondent No 2 issued Office Order No.5/31/83-SC, dated 05.09'1984, revising and re-fixing the to 3 in the cadre of Assistant senioritY of Petitioner Nos' I Grade-IdulyplacingthematSl.Nos.324(a|'27o(p|and324(b) respectively, as on 3O.O9.1975. While so, as Per the No.1O80 of i978 judgments ol Delhi High Court (in C'M P' dated 18.03.1933) arrd Madras High Court (in W.P.M.P.No 11776 of 1984 in W'P-No'11008 of 1983 dated 10.08. 1984), the seniority of one K'satyanarayana and N.Lakshmi was re-flxed at Sl'Nos'365(a) and 37 4(al respectively. Further, in pursuance of the order' dated 09.i1.1988, passed by Madras High Court in W'A'Nos'376 arrd 377 ol 1985, petitioner Nos'l to 3' alorrg with others' weredeemedtohavebeenpromotedasAssistantManager (General) w'e.f. 25.06'1976 uid'e ofhce Order' dated 141Ls.06.1989. 11 3 PK,J wp_129t4_2OO2 (ii) It is further submitted that the N.Lakshmi along with one K.Ganeshan filed W.p.No.4g79 of 1990, and K.Sat5ranarayana along with others liled W.p.No.119g6 of 1990 before the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to promote them, retrospectively, to the higher grades as Assistant Managers w.e.f. 25.06.19Z6 and to pay the arrears arising out of such promotion in accordance with the office order No.5/3il83-sc dated 05.09.i984 and order dated 14l15.06.1989. Vid.e order dated 22.12_1995, the Madras High Court had directed the respondent Corporation to consider their case for further promotion and to pay the arrears of salary. While implementing the said order, the respondents considered the claims of the juniors of petitioner Nos. I to 3 and paid a_11 arrears retrospectively. (iii) Further, the zonal seniorit5r of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the cadre of Assistant Manager (General) was also re-fixed by the respondent corporation, and thereafter, the Arl-India Integrated Seniority of the candidates, who approached the Madras High Court, was revised arld they were promoted as Deputy Managers (General). However, the respondent Corporation did not revise the seniorit5r of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 PK,.-I Wp 129r412OO2 3 in the cadre of Assistant Manager in the Al-r' lndia panel' filed W.P.No.121O8 of 1999 Therefore, Petitioner Nos' 1 to 3 them as DePutY Managers seeking a direction to Promote treating the Year 1976 as their panel year and to pay a1l related benehts. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner Nos.lto3forpromotiontothepostofDeputyManager (General). Pursuant to the sarne ' the respondents issued Office Orders, dated O5'O1'200 1 and 22'Ol'2OO1' promoting petiLioner Nos.1 to 3 as DePutY Managers' However' the respondents, have not paid them the arrears of salaqr attached to the post of Assistant Manager as \lras done in the case of their junrors. (iv) tt is further submitted that petitioner Nos' 1 to 3' after assuming the charge as DePutY Manager, submitted their representations to the respondents ctn 2O 'O2 '2O0I ' 2l,o4.2oo1and'22.02'2ool,requestingpaymentofarrearsof salary from the date of notional promotion as Assistant also DePutY Manager Manager w.e.f. 25'06'L976 and (General) u'.e.f. lgg4 and 1995' Consequently' the respondents uide Office Order, dated 07'06'2001 fixed their o 5 W p_12914 PK,J -2OO2 I I I i . pay notionally in the post of Deputy Manager (General) w.e.f. 18.09,1995 for petitioner Nos. r and 3 and w.e.f. 24.06.1994 for petitioner No.2. However, no arrears were paid by the respondents. Therefore, petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 filed W.P.No.21253 of 2OOl before erstwhite High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking a direction to the respondents to pay them the arrears of salar5r from the date of their notional promotion as Assistant Manager and Deputy Manager respectively. The said Writ Pelition was disposed of on lZ.lO.2OOl directing the respondents to consider the representations of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Subsequently, petitioner Nos. 1 submitted representations, however, the same were rejected on flimsy grounds. It is also contended that the respondents themselves tailed to revise the seniorit5r list at the relevant point of time and erroneously rejected the claim of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for payment of arrears, which is wholly u,ithout any basis, unreasonable and illegal. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present Writ Petition. to 3 (i 6 PK,J \Np 12914-2002 - !]11 (;

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the to 3, who were respondents submits that petitioner Nos' I in the resPondent i965, \1'ere Promoted as originallY aPPointed AS StenograPhers Corporation during the Year Order dated 05.12.1974' In Assistant Grade I (Ministerial) by pursuance of the orders of the Delhi High Court (in C'M P' No.108O of 1978 dated 18 03'1983) and the Madras High Court (in \I/.P'M.P. No'l1776 of 1984 in W.PNo I1OOB of 1982 dated 10.08-1984), the respondent Corporation revised the senioritl' list, wherein petitioner Nos' 1 to 3 were shown at Sl.Nos.324(a), 27O(p) and 324(b) respectively Thereafter' by virtue of the Office Order dated 14'06'1989' petitioner Nos'1 to 3, along with others, were deemed to have been promoted as Assistar:.t Managers (General) w e'f' 25'06 1976 and'this promotion was subject to the hnal decision in S'L P No' 12202 of 1983 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in W.P.No.189 of 1985 and W'P'No'12883 of 1984 of Madras High Court. On 30'03'1990' respondent No'2 cancelled the Order dated 14/15'06'1976 on account of various difficulties' Seeking quashment of the said order' N'Larmi and others including R.Ramanujam frled W'P'No'4979 of l99O and r-1 7 PK,J Wp-12914 2OO2 K.Satyanarayana filed W.p.No. 11g7 of l99O on the file of the Madras High Court. By order, dated.22.12.1995, the Madras High Court directed the respondent Corporation to consider the names of the petitioners therein for further promotion and also to pay the arrerrrs of salary etc. Accordingly M.Ganesan, N.Laxmi and K. Satyaaarayana were glven retrospective promotion w.e.f. 25.O6.1926 and, consequential promotion benefits. (ii) It is further submitted that the seniority of petitioner Nos. r to 3, arong with others, was reyised in view of the decision rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1065l of 1993 dated 20.03.1997 setring aside the Division Bench Order of the Madras High Court and directed the respondent Corporation to determine the position of aII eligible persons by reviewing the promotions. Accordingly, seniority list of Assistant Managers has been revised. Therefore, the allegation that the seniorit5r of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 was not revised in the category of Assistant Manager in AII India panel on the ground that they have not approached the Court, is incorrect. Further, as per the instructions contained in paragraph No.3 of the Circular 6 of l9g5 dated t 8 PK,J Wp 12914-2002

11.02.1985, it has been clarilied that the cases where seniority was revised as a result of t}-e Court orders and notional promotion was granted with retrospective effect' the pay of the ernployees concerned should be fixed notionally withreferencetotheyear/dateoftheirappointmenttothe higher post, as they had been deprived of their iegitimate right to promotion on the due date' However' the monetary benelits shall be given effect only from the actual date on whichtheelnployeeassumeddutyinthehigherpost,since they did not work in that capacity during the intervening period. In this view of the matter' the representations of petitioner Nos l to 3 were rightly rejected by the Competent the Writ Petition is devoid of merits AuthoritY. Hence, Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition'

6. This Court has taken note of submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties

7. Admittedly, petitioners No' 1 to 3 were initialty appointed as Stenographers in the respondent Corporrrtion and were subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Gradel r'' l 9 PK.J W p_t29 ra-2}62 (Ministerial) in 1974. They were Iater deemed to have been promoted as Assistant Managers (General) with retrospective effect from 25.06.19Z6, by virtue of the Office Order dated 14 / L5.O6.19g9. However, this promotion was expressly made subject to the outcome of pending litigatio. before the Hontrle Supreme Court and the Madras High Court. However, the said Office Order was cancelled on 30.03.1990 owing to the administrative constraints. 8 On perusal of record, it is evident that in pursuance of the order, dated lZ. 10.20O1, passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in W.P.No.21253 of 2O0r, the representations of petitioner Nos. I to 3 were considered and rejected urde impug:ned order dated 16.01.2OO2. The order clearly reads as follows: -11 ,b. atyo tnformed.that as per tl_te instructions contatned utde FCr. a7yga""rt[r", ii.ui]'*o.o o1 1985, para 3 utheiein it ni"-i"""'iriioTrn ron o that the cases uthere seniority is reubed is-a.resutt of Court Order and. nottona.t p;o^.i;o;-;;'iu,.n ,*^ ^pas ;j' ti o"i)urrou" retrospectiue effect, tn . ,*3,#:/"""ry:i!:#;!,:zxi::twit::xtt emplogee qncerned ':1:!::;" *tr;;h#:*^"o::",;"i::':*:! # monetary benefits shatt toy,eug, i;;;;"iiiin .t"o lrom the actuat d.ate from the date,-tir[Z*it a." nrz" It i I I i : i i i i ! i I I I I i i i 10 PK,J Wp-129142OO2 "ip"i,tg joined the Higher post as theg haue not utorked in that for that particular peiod'' 'iig"ii, g. As per the instructions contained in Circular No'6 of 1985 dated 1f -O2'1985, where promotions are granted on senioritY revision or the Court retrospectivelS' based is to be done notionallY and such orders, PaY f,xation monetarj' benefits are to accrue only from the date of their aitual assumption of charge/duty in the higher cadre' In the instant case, petitioner Nos'l to 3 never actuatly discharged duties as Assistant Managers or Deputy Managers from the retrospective dates claimed' Accordingly' no arrears were paid but therr pay was rightly fixed notionally in compliance with the applicable circulars and administrative guidelines' Thus, the main grievance of the petitioners that arreans were not paid from 25.06.1976 and also from the datr: of promotion as Deputy Manager is legally unsustainable' as it is contrary to binding circulars, administrative instructions' and principles governing notional promotions''I'herefore' this Court finds no justifiable ground to interlere with the impugned rejection order' As such' this Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed' I 11 P(,J Wp_I2914 2OOz

10. Accordingly, this Writ petition is dismissed. I Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- P. PONNA KRISHNA IATANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SMT.B.V.APARNA LAKSHMI, Advocate. tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRt DANTU SRINIVAS 3. Two CD Copies. sc FoR FCt. IoPUC] BSK PvL HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 (: g1 q EP ,\ .-. t :,:.: TCii \ ORDER WP.No.12914 o12002 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I I : i I i I I