The High Court · 2025

Mr.K.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, Aged about: 46 years, Occ: Divisional Engineer/ (O & M)-ll /Srisailam Right Bank Power House, Sunnipet, APGENCO, Srisailam Porject, Kumool District, On deputation to ED(IS), GIS Colony, APGENCO, Kalyan Nagar, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 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 to stay the orders passed in W.P.No.32747 of 2012 dated 26-03-2025. Counsel for the Appellants: SRt SRINIVASA SRIKANTH (SC FOR TG GENCO) Gounsel forthe Respondent: SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER AND rDDIN Writ Appeal No.t174 of 2025 Order, Fleard Mr. Srinivasa srikanth, learned Sta.ndhg counsel for the appellants-Telangana State power Generation coqporation Limited (TSGENCO) and lv[r. K.Kinn, learned counsel for the responde m/ urntpetitioner. 2- The presenr appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 26.03.2025, passed in S7.P.No .32747 of 2012. 3- The petitioner availed Extr:aord *^ryLeave t'EoL) for five Fars to work abroad under specific condition; with effect from 15-08.2001 till 31.05.2006 in terms of Regrrlation 19 of the APSEB Leave Regulations and T(fo.I\{s.No.g dated 09.04.2001, udrich prescribed conditions to be satisfied while availing EoL by the emplopes of TSGENCO. The I I conditions allowed the employee ro undertake employment during the period of EoL. It also stipulated that su,:h period of ) al'\i 'i absence will not be construed as a break in service. It will not be counted for service benefits such as incremrnts, PaY, leate etc. On return from leave, the emplope shall not claim any preference oler cthen in his Parent unit for Promotion or higher pay by virnre of the experience gained in foreign employment. After re-joining and on completion of five years' service in the oryantzation excluding the period of EoL, the petitioner was granted Promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer on 20.08 .2009, Thereafter, the petitioner approached the writ court n 2OL2 seeking to treat the period of EoL from 14.08.2001 till 31.05.2006 as qalifyr"g seruice for promotion to the Post of Divisional Engineer on par with his junion. FIe also Praytd for restoration of his senioriry in the cadre of Divisional Engineer by treating the EoL period as quJifiurg service with all consequential benefits. By the impugned iudgment dated 26.03.2025, the writ court allowed ( ( the prapr. Being aggrieved, the TSGENO has preferred this appeal. ::3::

4. on behalf of the appe[ants-TSGENco, reference is made to APsEB Engineering service Regulatic,ns (for shon 'the Regulations ), which prescribe the rnethod and qualification for promotion from one caregory ro the nexr category and class. The appellants have relied upcrn Regulation 5(a) thereof. which prescribes the quarificarion for promotion to the cadre of Divisional Engineer from the cadre of Assistant Divisional Engineer. It requires rendering of seryice as Assistant Divisionar Engineer for nor less than (a) five Fars, if recruited bytransferor (b) six pars. if recruited directly including a war spenr on training. Th. appelranrs contend that having remained on EoL for five )ears and undenaken employrnent overseas, petitioner did not render qualifying service as an Assistant Divisional Engineer for being considered for promotion. The petitioneds senioriry otherwise vras nor changed in the fusisrant Divisional Engineer cadre. But he could have come in the zone of counting five years of l t \ :4:z \-r \\ \'. \ ^Frfli3il I seryice in the War 2009. Therefore, such Promotion was granted to hirn, which he accepted and later on challenged it in the year 20t2. Learned writ court, therefore, committed error in granting the relief. :-

5. Learned cotrnsel for the writ petitioner submits that the employer does not suffer ar:y disadvantage as the leave regulation permined employment abroad, during which period the emplope also gained experience. Once the period of EoL cannot be reated as break in service, the consequent benefits of promotion for counting the qualifying period of service as per Regulation 9(A) of Regulations would stand fulfilled in the case of the petitioner. 'lherefore, the leamed writ court has rightly granted the relief. I

6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and the relevant materials referred to and placed on record, we are of the opinion that the petitionefs senioriry could have remained unaffected in view of the specific tenns I I 5 and conditions of TOO.i\uls.No.g dated 09.114.2001 as the period of employment abroad d*i"g EoL coull not be reated as break in service- But, the Reguiation goveming the promotion consciously prescribes rendering of service in the orgaruzation for five )€ars, if recruited by transfer for being eligible for promotion to the nexr higher stage. There is an objective behind that. The employee gains experience by rendering service in that panicular cadre i.e., fusistant Divisional Engineer in his parent organization. The emplopr gets opponurury to assess his performance, vzhich is also a criteria to evaluate his candidature for the nex higher promotion. If the petitioner has been engaged in employment overseas, these stipulatioru do nor get satisfied. Even the annual confidential records during those periods, for assessing the character performance of the emplope, could not have been written by the employer. On fulfilling the live pars of qualifyrng service excluding the period of EoL, he was promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer in thr-' year 2009. I I 6 Q. .!\. Three Fars thereafter, he prefcrred the \Wrir Petition, which has been allowed by the learned writ courr on effoneous grounds. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere in tlre matrer.

7. The impugned judgment dated 26.03.2025, passed in \fl.P.No.32747 of 2012, is set aside. The instant \frit Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. fu a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending { ury stand closed. SD/.K.SAILESHI JOINT RE //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, 1 one cc to sRl sRlNlvASA SRIKANTH (SC FOR TG GENCO), Advocate 2. dne-Ct to SRt KONDAPARTHY KTRAN KUMAR, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies loPUcl MMT LS I t I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 ORDER WA.No.1174 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS /,,"1 *l,t1r-