A. Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the aciion of the respondent authorities in not passing any orders considering the representations of the petitioner daled O4t09t2023 and 15-04-2025 restoring the petitioner to the post of lineman with original pay and seniority and not taking any steps for the promotion of Line lnspector, is nothing but arbitrary' illegal' null and void and violative of principles of natural justice, and also violative of Articles 14' 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble cou( may deem fit e.d 3'lper in the interest of justice. cc,nse,ruer,y direct the respondent auth,ritit, : to consider the representations subn.r itted by the petitioner dated 04-09-2022 ar c 15-04-2025 for restoring him to the: por;t ol rineman with original pay and :'v clr- r / restoring the seniority and thereby for rron rotion as Line lnspector. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 petition unror rlrctron 15'r cpc praying that in the circurrstarces stated in the affidavit filed r. r,L 1:port of the petition, the High Court m;ry bt pleased to direct the responce.t aL thorities to consiQer the representat ons sub nitted by the petitioner dated ()z -c',1 >-023 and 15-04-2025 for restoring hinr to the post of lineman with orirliral r)ay and by duly restoring the si:nio.ity, thereby for promotion as Line lns; r.r:tor. Counsel for the Pr:titiorrer : SRI K.VENUMADHAV counsel for the Respc rrr,ents: sRl A.cHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR l.lpDcL The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU ESHWAR RAO - ORDER WRIT PETITION No.17218 OF 2O25 With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition IS disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for NPDCL, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the casg are that the petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Lineman at Mubarak Nagar, Nizamabad. While working as a Lineman at LM/D-II/Nizamabad, the petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No.3 through Memo No.DEE/Op/Nzb/JAO/Adm/F.No.46l2015, dated 01.05'2015, on the ground of grave charges, pending enquiry. Following the enquiry, respondent No.3 imposed a punishment through Memo No. DEE/OplN zb DAO / Adm/ E2lD. No. 1 666 / 2017, dated 30. 10. 20 1 7, reducing tire petitioner to the lower cadre of Assistant Lineman for a period of three years and treating the suspension period as such. Upon completion of the said punishment on 29 .10.2020, the petitioner was reinstated to duty on 30.10.2020. However, the petitioner was neither permitted to discharge duties as a Lineman nor paid the corresponding salary, and was also excluded from the , ) re' --'---!.......1!f-...:..'<:r --€r --::::---t*=::::- eligible lisit 01' - nemen for promotion to the post of l-ine Inspector in 2 \ October 2O)-4.

4. A c-i rr r:l case in F.I.R. No.342 of 2OL|: wirs r:gistered at Kamaredc,l Fr lice Station. After completion ot' the ir vestigation, a charge l;lrer: t was filed and the case was numbererj as C.C.No.533 of 2074 cr-r tl,: file of the Principal lunior Civil ludge-,:um-ludicial Magistrater :rf Fi-st Class at Kamlreddy. The casr,: ended in acquittal through juCqnt3nt dated 20.11.2024. The p(ltitioner submitted detailed reprc_.entations dated 04.O9.2023 and 15.04.: 025 to the respondent ,at. tl- orities seeking restoration of orir.lina p,3 /, seniority, incrementr;, .-,, prorno,,on, but no action was taken Jespite the petitioner':; sLt(rannuation on 30.06.2025. Aggr,eved b| the same, the petitionor 'i t:d the present Writ petition.

5. Learr.d r:)unser for the petitioner submitr-. ffrat rppropriate orders ma,'y' Ir : passed in this Writ petition by dir ecting the respondents l.: consider the representations ijubrnitt,)d by the petitioner o" 14.09.2023 and 15.04.2025 and pass rrppropriate orders in ar:c:crJance with law within a reasonable perroo.

6. Learrr:d r;tanding Counsel for NpDCL, erppearin g for the respondent:, s;lt mits that he has no objection f,rr the ,lisposal of the repres enta .ions of the petitioner dated 04 09 . l_023 and 15.04.2025, r' .;i*: 3

7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective pafties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.04.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/-P, PADMANABH DEPUTY RE A REDDY GIST //TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The PrinciPal Secretary to the Energy DePa State of Tela ngana, HYderabad nt, Secretariat Buildings'

2. The SuPerintending Eng rneer, Telangana Northern Power Distribution noana Northern Power 3 The Divisional Engineer Elecl N-izamabad. noana Northern Power Nizamabad. CorPoratio n Limited, Nizam abad District, N izamabad Operation, Tela Distr ibution CorPorati on Limited, Ntzam abad District' D-2, f ela Distribution CorPorafion Limited, Nizam abad District, CorPorati on Limited, Waranga l, Warangal Pro per and District

4. The Assistant Engineer' Operation ' 5. The Cha irman and Managtng Director, Telangana Northern Power Distribution VENUMADHAV, Advocate lOPUCl CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR NPDCL' IOPUC]

6. One CC to SRI K 7. One CC to SRI A 8. Two CD CoPies BSK BS HIGH COI.JR'.l- DATED:0U47't2025 l]C TODAY ,...: ) j;lfs_ )ji5 i7-7- fr, x t/ ORDER WP.No.172!.18 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CI]ISTS /2/z 7/7 /r{