High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of mandamus declaring the proceedings No CE/ENQ/Dlvl.V/310- R1/92-18 dated 1B-01-1997 issr-red by the '1st respondent and the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.CE/DCiDM. XX/310.R1/92-'1 9 dated 23-02-'i998 made in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the orders issued vide Memo No.CE/DC/Dtt/lXXl310-R1192-20 dated 10-10-1998, in issuing Memo NoDS(PER/AS) (PER)/PO(DC)1319-C112002, dated 30-06-2003 and [\/emo NO.DS (PER/AS/PO/DC/7BB-C212003, dated 05-07-2004 communicated to the petitioner only on 12-09-2004 in the review petition and their action in treating 7 the period of sur;pension as such restricting the emolume.t; to be drawn by the petitioner to thr: subsistence alowance arready paid, rr not rereasing the increments durirg the period of suspension, recovering rh<: rncrements pard to the petitioner during the period of reversion to the post of Assistanl Engineer that to without issuing; any notice and in not restoring the petitior"e;r to the post of ADE on culmination of the period of reversion and belatedly prr:,rnoting the petitioner directly to the pcrst of Divisional Engineer thereby denyinc he petitioner higher salary for a perioJ of 4 months in the post of ADE and arsc r:;rusing monitory ross to the petitioner by fixing the petitioner pay drawn by the p etitioner as Assistant Engineer as arbitrary illegal, violative of the principles of na trrral justice, violative of the fundament;rl rights guaranteed to the petitioner under lrrticles i4 and 16 of the constitution of India and also violatrve of the conduct t)iscipline and Appear Regulations and service Regurations of the respondent anr: set aside the same and direct the respondents to treat as if the petitioner has rrrver been reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer and grant all consequential bt:rrefits that flow there from such as restoration of originar seniority, grant to pr.rrotions to the next higher posts and rerease of all consequential monitory berre fits and also direct the respondents J.o treat the period of suspension as.duty rnd rerease alr the consequential berefits including monttory benefits. Counsel for the P,-'titioner: SRI S.SRI RAM REDDY Counsel for the R,espondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSpDCL The Court made tlre following: ORDER a - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2OO73 of 2OO4 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in reverting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer to the post ol Assistartt Engineer for a period of 5 years and in passing consequential orders treating the period of suspension, recovering the increments paid during the period of reversion, promoting the petitioner to the post of D.E. without first promoting the petitioner to the post of ADE on culmination of the period of reversion and in wrongly fixing his pay in the post of D'E as arbitrary and illegal.

2. Heard Sri S. Sriram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner ald Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL, appearing for respondents'

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner expired on 25.06.2013 and the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner were brought on record as petitioners No'2 and 3 respectively. I !r--\ 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners frt rl.her submits that thou'gh the main petitioner died, the legrrl heirs of the deceased petitioner are entitled for the death 5:nefits of the deceased petitioner and direct the respondent ztuthorities to pay the rleath benefits of the deceased petitioner to the petitioners on their submission of a representa i rn.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents did t-r,rt oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for th:: petitioners.

6. Having regard to the submissions made :r',' the learned counsel fc,r respective parties, this Court, with(t,rrt expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, direct l.LLe petitioners to submil- a representation to the responderrt authorities within a p,eriod of six (06) weeks from the date c,f receipt of a copy of ttLis order. On such representation L,eing made by the petitioners, the respondent authorities irre directed to consider the same and pass appropriate olders, if the petttionerr; are otherwise eligible for the death b:nefits of the deceased petitioner, in accordance with law, u'i.hin a period of eight (O8) weeks therefrom

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petiticn is disposed

61. There shall be no order as to costs- f / J Miscellaneous apptications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAII DEPUTY REGISTRAd & SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Central Power Distrrbution Company of T.G., Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 The Board of Directors, Central Power Distribution Company of T.G ' Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad.

3. One CC to SRI S.SRI RAM REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUC] 5 Two CD CoPies BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 --1' ,Z -t:.1 .-=:' - o ;.n r -'e i\ -\Cr ) ) _) 2 I ir:P 2[6 1)r '',. ORDER WP.No.20073 of 2004 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS