V. Jagr r a Iha Rao and others v. State of A.P. and o .hcrs reported in

tttfiry."""1 I .:.:n

2. The Cornrr sr irner of Endowments, A.P., Boggulakunta, H)1d rre bad - 500001

3. The State cf elAngana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Reve:nue (Endowmr-.rrtr ) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad I

4. The Cornrn s: i 'rder, Endowments Department, Telangana, Bc gg.rlakunta Tilak Road, Hyd<,ri t ad. (As pe. CoLrrl o Nos.1 &2er<,1 er dated 2411012024 in WP(TR) 6454 ot 20i,,7 r'espondent T eleted ) I I I l,l Petitron IJ r< circumstances s tilt pleased to decl l-e channel to the Su respondent r qh1 rrl posts from the C?t pension on notional 14 and 21 ol Thr: (l .ITEISPONDENTS Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayirrg that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High C curt may be action of the respondents in not creating th(,) promotional {.'intendents worked / working in the offir;e o,' the second r'115.02.2003 and not promoting the appl crtnls in the said ) they are eligible to such promotional posls itnd refix the L iisis as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisic,ns of Articles rrstitution of lndia and the judgment of The Hon ble Supreme iflos.9643-44 of 1995, dated 07.11.2O0'1 and corsequentially r lS to promote the applicants in the posls that are to be created w.e.f . 1l;.0 ::003, as per the directions of The Hon'ble Sl.lpreme Court in paragaraph 2.2 ctl 1y! judgment reported in 2001 (i0) SCC 401 rnd refix the pension of the € t p ldnt on the date on which the applicants wer€, retired from service and pay l- e :-rears to them. Court in Civil Ap :,:r direct the resoonci( l I I I Counsel for the Pet,ti ners : SRI KRISHNA SHARMA, ADVOCATE trOR SRI P.V.S.S.S.RAlVl, r RAO Counsel for the Rer p ndents : GP FOR SERVICES -l I The Court made tit( iollowing ORDER r} TIIE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.6454 0F 2017 ORDER In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not creating prornotional channel to the Superintendents worked/working in the office of the 2nd respondent right from 15.02.2003 and in not promoting the petitioners in the said posts from the date they are eligible to such promotional posts as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Articles l4 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the judgrnent of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Civil Appeal Nos.9643-44 of 1995 dt.07.11.2001 and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioners in the posts that are to be created with effect from 15.02.2003 and to refix the pension of the petitioners notionally on the date on which they retired from service and to pay alTears to them and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the frling of the present Writ Petition (TR) are that the petitioners were all appointed as Typists / Junior Assistants in the office of the 2nd respondent and later were promoted to the posts W.P.(TR) i,o 641'4 of 2017 2 of Senior' ,\r s istants and further promoted to the posts of Superintendc'rtr, All of them retired as Superintendents f 'orn the office of the 2'd lesf o r,,",ent in the years 2008 and 2009. It is sLrlrmitted that as per the Andf ra. r'r'adesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments A :'., 1987 and the Rules framed thereundr:r, there are 5 categories of f . !;ts in the Endowments Department and Category 5 consisted of :ri', (llasses and the post of Assistant Commrssroner comes under Class-[ t[ r'r'crof. As per Rule 3 of the Rules, the po';t rrf Assistant Commission,:r' lrrll be filled (i) by direct recruitment of a :erson who has not less thar :i years of practice as an Advocate in thc IJigh Court of Andhra Plader l',. or (ii) by promotion from tht: cirtegory of Superintendent rl Special Category Stenographer in the E ndorvments Department; cr 'rii) by promotion of Executive Officer Cra,:le-I; or (iv) by transft:r ol' person who has been holding an equi.ralent post of Assistant (lcnrr ri ssioner in any of the Chadtable or [IindLr Religious Institutions anrl ilndowments established under Clause i a) of Section 6 of the Andhra I r ,rdesh Charitable and Hindu Religious IrLstitutions and Endowments A r . 1987 including a person in the sen jc: of Tirumala Tirupati l)evast nnams. It is submitted that Note (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules gives zr i ustration as to how the vacancies are to 1re filled up in W.P.(TR) No.6454 of 2017 3 the ratio prescribed therein between the Superintendents and the Special Category Stenographers. According to the petitioners, they were fully qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner in the vacancies reserved for Superintendents/Speciai category Stenographers working in the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. However, they were not promoted to the said post before they attained the age of superannuation, even though their cases were considered a number of times right from 2005. It is submitted that a number of promotions were given to the post of Assistant Commissioner. However, the category from which the petitioners are claiming for promotion has not been considered for promotion even though the Special Rules were not amended. It is submitted that except for the category of the petitioners in the Endowments Department, all other categories of employees were considered and promoted and on enquiry, they were informed that a Circular U.O. Note No.44232|B|SPF.N2OO2 dt.t5.OZ.2OO3 was issued by the GAD and therefore, the petitioners were not considered for promotion. It is submitted that as long as the Rules were permitting the Superintendents/special category stenographers working in the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad to get W.P.(TR) No.545 4 of 2017 4 promotion to l lr:i post of Assistant Commissioner. thr: r'espondents cannot rel)' tLpc r the Circular Memo of the Government dt 15.02.2003 for not givittl-: 1,111p6tions and therefore, challenging the same, the present Writ Pg1 ion (TR) has been filed.

3. It is sub urtcd that the U.O. Note dt.15.02.200 1 ,.vas issued directing all t r : Departments of the Secretariat ,rr d Heads of Depaftments r r stop appointments by transfer o I Section Officers/Assis a r Section Officers, Superintendents. elc , ,,,;orking in the Secretirrie t a rr:. f'Ieads of Department Officers to the l]>:ec utive cadre post localise<l r: rrlcr the Presidential Order in the Disu ir'ts tilt further orders and th<.s , orders were issued pursuant to the judgnrent of the Hon'ble Supren r (lourt dt.07.11.2001 in Civil Appeat Nos.,Xr43-44 of 1996 (V. Jagr r a Iha Rao and others Vs. State of A.P. and o .hcrs reported in (2001 ) I 0 i Il 401 0). It is submitted rhat in the lzLsr par agraph of the said judgmeni, t r : l'Ion'ble Supreme Court has observed lha- "it would be in the inter,:s rtf administration to have a channel ol Irro rns1i6, L. every servlce so :l ! to avoid stagnation at a particular level sul>ject to the condition tha- rl i incumbents of a service are otherwist quatified to shoulder the re sr ,, rnsibility of the higher promotional pos1.,, I{owever, the responderti I r.ve not provided the channel of promotior, ancl have W.P.(TR) No.6454 of 2017 5 not responded to the several representations made by the petitioners. However, after retirement of the petitioners in the years 2008 and 2009, the respondents have issued G.O.Ms.No.42, Finance (SMPC) Department, dt.22.02.2010, whereunder eight (8) posts of Superintendents and one (1) post of Special Category Stenographer in the office of the 2nd respondent were upgraded to that of Gazetted Superintendent/Gazetted Special Category Stenographer which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, in the time scale of Rs.9285 - 21550 and pursuant to the said upgadation, certain Superintendents were appointed as Gazetted Superintendents and such persons were juniors to the petitioners. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they were eligible for promotion, but for the U.O. Note dt.15.02.2003, they were not promoted and since G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010 has been issued, the case of the petitioners also should be considered for upgradation and consequential benefits notionally and fixation of their pension in higher posts. Initially, the petitioners filed O.A.No.6590 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, on abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. (TR) No.6454 of 2017. W.P.(TR) No.()15. i of 2017 6

4. Learned c r,rnsel for the petitioners has reiterated th,: s rbmissions made in the $rr t Petition (TR) and prayed for notional pro notion and notiona[ ben: i-L- at least from the date on which th,: r)osts were upgraded ancl 1[r iuniors were promoted to the said posts 5, LeameC ( i :,vemment Pleader for Services-I, on th: other hand, relied upon t r,l l,,'erments made in the counter affi<lavit rLncl submitted that the Writ Pe i ion (TR) is not maintainable as the State ol'Telangana is not responsjb r , It is submitted that the petitioners had rer.ired in the years 2001i arx l l(-)09 in the State of Andhra Pradesh an,J thr,rrefore, the records woLrld I r available with the State of Andhra Pr.de sh and the petitioners ucu cr have to make the 'State of Andhra F radesh' as necessary pdl t',r r r the Writ Petition (TR) and the State 01 -|,.:langana not responsibk: i,:: the same. Fufther, it is also submittetJ chat the relief claimed by tle 1i't.ilioners is against the ratio laid down b.r t[e Hon'ble Supreme (lour ir thc case of V. Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra I'ra lesh and othersr. It is submitted that tlre U.O. Note dt.15.02.2003 r;r ::; issued pursuant to the directions r,f tfre Hon'ble Supreme (lourt i r :}ie case of V. Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State * lzoory ro scc 4( I W.p.(TR) No.6454 of 2017 7 of Andhra Pradesh and others ( I supra) and the pet-itioners were not given promotions thereunder. It is submitted that juniors were not promoted vide G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010, but their posts were upgraded and since the petitioners had retired p.ior to such date, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.42 dt.2Z.O2.2Ol0 cannot be granted to the petitioners. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Government of West Bengal and others Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others2.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this court finds that though the petitioners were eligibre for promotion to the posts of Assistant Commissioners from the category of Superintendents/Special Category Stenographers in the Endowments Department, they were not promoted consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V. Jagannadha Rao and others Vs. State ofAndhra pradesh and others (l supra). It is also not in dispute that the u.o. Note dt.r5.o2.2oo3 was issued in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme court. The petitioners are only seeking promotion on par with their juniors who were granted * ?tro TS9^9.Oj,Civit AppealNo(s). of2024 arising our ofSLp (Civil) No(s). of2024 urary No.43488 of 202J dt.27.t t.2024. W.P.(TR) N,).r 45, of20l7 8 benefit urrder :.O.Ms.No.42 dt.22.02.2010. Hou,ever, the leamed Government l) e L,.ler for Services-I has clearly pointed out. attd it is also admitted bv lr: retitioners in the Writ Petition (TIl), th,rt the juniors were not prcnx {,rd but the posts themselves were upgt td,.:d and the persons who ,re t' rvorking in the said posts at the relevattt pc,irtt of time were given the renefits of upgraded post. As hetd by ttre Hon'ble Supreme (lour i : the case of Government of West Bengal r,tnd others Vs. Dr. Amal S rtpathi and others (2 supra), promoli6n onl/ becomes eflective upon 1l t' assumption of duties on the promotiora p,ls1 and not on the date ol rx r rrrence of the vacancy or the date of re,:c,mrlendation Since the petitio r.:rs were Superintendents before the upgrrrdr Ltion of the posts, they rue not entitled to the retrospective tinrrrcirrl benehts associated rvilh lhe upgraded post of Gazetted Super nt.)ndents or Gazetted Spe,;ia ,)ategory Stenographers. Therefore, this Oorrrl is olthe opinion that the Iretitioners are not eligible for upgradaticn rtf the post prior to issua,r,le rf G.O.Ms.No.42 in the year 2010. Irurrher. this Court is also in agr('p r ant with the contention of the leamed C overnment Pleader thaL sinc : the petitioners retired in the years 2008 anc 2009,i.e., before bifirrcrrlic r of the State, they would have grievance :rgainst the i I I W.P.(TR) No.6454 of 201 7 9 Govemment of Andhra Pradesh and not against the Govemment of Telangana.

7. The Writ Petition (TR) is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 8 Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition (TR) shall stand closed. '1. Two CCs to GP Hyderabad. [OU 2. One CC to SRI 3. Two CD Copies To SA BS //TRUE COPY// Sd/-L.VIJAYA LAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER OR SERVICES-|, High Court e State of Telangana at V.S.S.S.RAIVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] \ I HIGH COUFI] DATED:25l0ir/ 025 i:' -' /a-- 1, \ t'. :. f;l -''; ' /'..' ,;. z t) 7 ? vr znzs \.b_\..?*\,,t" .c,

6.O - -t/' ORDER WP(TR).No.6 f 4 of 2017 DrsMrssrNG rHE W.P(TR) WITHOUT C()STS. I