1. T. Bhaskar Yadav v. 1. The Union of lndia

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 direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to E4 Grade basing upon their length of service in view of thetr representation dt. 15/03/2022 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI NARESH KUMAR GORIGE Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI P.SHASHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : - The Court made the following ORDER \)i...; THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO IVRIT PETITION No.33949 of 2023 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Ther6 is no representation on behalf of the respondents

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents organization issued a notification in the month of .lune, 2O 1 1 calling applications for recruitment ro the pr-rst of Finance and Account Assistarts and the mtnimum qualificatron required for the said post is either B.Com./M.Com.. qrith 5 to 8 years of experience. As the petitioners were successful candidates in the recruitment for the post of Finance and Account Assistants, they r'r,ere issued r.t ith an appoin tment order dated 3l .Ol.2Ol2 separately, appointing the petitioners in the respondent organization as Finance anci Account Accountants. But. in the said appointment letter, no pay scale was mentioned

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that initially, the petitioners were paid Rs.26,O0O/- per month inclusive of all emoluments. There was no revision of pay scale to the petitioners till 2O 14, but the persons who were appointed I I { t .1, along u,rr-ir tir,.' t)eLiri(ilte1 s) \vere put on one ]iear probation period and tht'ir salzrries were increased every year by adding increnrenLs :utrl L,ii'rcr t:tntriuments.

1. i-ealn,-:cl c()Lltscl {br 1,he petitioners further submits that the pr:titionels nracit, a representation to the respondents ol-l 3O.06.201,1 rL=clLiesling to revise the pa1* scaies which were being paicl 1o r lrc ttcliti(rners aitd also for promotion to the higher caclr-e In \'te\\; of the said reprcsentation, thr: respcn<ients p:-ottoi.c.cl thc Dctitroners from the post of Assistant (F&A) to Scnic,r.'\ssis;i.rnrs and accordir-rgly, pay r,vas revised in pursuance of :l'rc irror:r:eciings dated 25.12.2O17

5. I-cirr-iti:tl r-,, lls( i ioi rhe- petitioner further submits that the ct-'tit-ionel.l n. i:iriL- rr'tr,.iher rcpr-esentation dated 04.O2.2018 alleging iirrrt i h,. :-r: u'r re ()n1-!r t\\,o non executive employees as Senior Assisranr in respondent organization who have been working sittcr- r,l ,. earsi continr-Lously in service. While so, the respondents tr;sLrr:d [lF] prilicy rr the year 2015, wherein the servlce condititr-:sr'rer:rlliirnent policvT'revision of pay scales etc., \\'ere de taijt'rl onil in respect of executive cadre, but not for non executl\r(. ( ircires. The executive employees who were 3 appointed along with the petitioners, were promoted to the E1 position and thereafter promoted to E,2, E3 and E4 position within a period of seven years of their appointment. Though petitioners have compieted 12 years of service, there was no upgradation either in the pay scales or in the promotion. \ Therefore, the petitioners requested the respondents to add them in the said E4'grade. But, the respondents instead of , I promoting to the post of E4 position, the petitioners were given E1 grade. As such on 15.03.2O22, the petitioners again made a representation to the respondents to consider their case. But, no action has been initiated by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, without going into rnerits of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 15.03.2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of stx (06) u,eeks frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the sarne to the petitioners. i I l To 4 7 \\iith the ;r.l.rcr,e direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of No order as to ,.rosts As zr sequ,:i. rniscelianeous appiications pending, if any, in this Writ Petitir-,n. siralj srund closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIST NT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER 1 The secretary, Union of rndia, tvrinistry of petroreum and Naturar Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-l 10001 . The tVanaging Director, Bhagya Nagar, Gas Limited, parishram Bhavan, l-Floor, TSIDC, Building, Basheer:bagh, Hyderabad. The Chief tt4anager, Bhagya Nagar Gas Limited, parishram Bhavan, TSIDC Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 \) 4 ^ o 7 (Commercial), Bhagyanagar Gas Limited, parishram Bhavan, ]!9_D_irgctor TSIDC Building Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI NARESH KgylR GORtcE, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRI P.SHASH| KIRAN, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies SA GJP s \ a t\1 2 5 rll :ti:5 .r( D.t. -1, ,1. 11-i ;-.- .P ,\ ,+ <t ,/ t HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER WP.No.33949 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ql'd ry6*