The High Court · 2025

Order

Being aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in properly implementing the recommendation s of the sub committee in favour of petitioner for granting notional promotion to the higher scales and not extending thc benefits to which he is entitled, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. The case of pctitioner is that hc rvas a1t1;ointcd as .Junior Assistant on 26.11.1966 in thc 2"d rcspondent - State Ware Housing Corporation, Hyderabad. During his tcnure, he worked at various stations in various cadres and ultimately, retired from service as Secretary of the Corpora Lion on

31.10.2006. While in scrvice, duc to anomalics in cadre structure, petitioner is stated to have suffered loss ol promotion which resulted in loss of seniority. It stated, previously .Junior Assistan t/Typist/.Iunior Stcno arc equivalcr.r t cadrcs in tirc Scale of Pay of Rs.9O-6-1lO'Z L92 and Scnior Assistant/Godown Keeper arc of the scale of Rs. 140 () 23O lO- 280; Junior Steno, the post of which was cqual to Junior Assistant/Typist had avenue of being promoted to thc post of Senior Steno-cum-PA to MD/P.A. ro Chairman which is 1 e qllivzrlent to Grade-III Warehouse Manage r/ Supe rintendent/ Accounliurt rvhich rvas in the scale of pay of Rs.2O0 1'2-320-60- 4OO. Whereas Jur-rior Assistant has to cross Sr' A sst'post to rczrch a post equivalent to Sr.Steno- The grievance cf petitioner

is thzrt one Sri C-Raghuaram Murlhy and Sri E.Prasad Rao who werc Junior Stcnos and ..;uniols to pctitioner in the cadrc of Godovr,n Kceper/Junior Assistant/Junior Steno werc irregularly given promotion to the post of Senior Str:no7 PA to M.D./Chairman of the 2n(r responclent Corporation overlonking Lhe intermecliary cadre of Senior Assistant/ Godo'vn Kccper' Thcy rvere given double promotion at the first instance itself n hile all othcrs n'ho were in the same cadre have g'ot onll' one plornoLior] to tl're stage of Scnior Assistant/ Godou'n Keepcr' Thc stzrff Asso<:iatiotr and the affected individuals had rrLade several rcprt:sctrlations to thc Govcrnment as well :rs the 2t1<t rcspondent for rectification of the anomalies. At last, in 1997, rccommendatlons \ rere made by the Sub-Committet: which was constitutcd for the said purposc. However, the berlehts of thc sAmc wero not give n for the persons who have bec n adverse ly aft'ccted, including petitioner. According to petitllner, he is entitlecl for grant of notional benefrts for the pcriod prior to the date ol recommendations o[ the sub-committee. But hou'ever, nr> positive action is coming forth from the side of re:;pondents' r -=:4 J

3. In the counter Iiled by the 2"d respondent, it is stated, the employees of the Corporation are governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Employee s' Regulatrons, 1965 and the amendmcnts made thereon from time to time. Any amendment/modihcation made to the said Regulations shall come into force from the datc of its publication in the ofhcial Gazette. As such, giving promotions tcr the employees of the Corporation are also covered by thc sard Regulations in force at a particular point of time It is further stated, petitioner having complc[ed about 40 years of service in the Corporation, retired on

31.10.2006 from the position of Secretary on superannuation, which is the top-most post in the Corporation services This respondent had taken objection statlng that after 6 % years of his retirement, petitioner chose to knock the doors of this Court to get redressai of his alleged grievances staled to bc occurred cluring his early career i.e. in 1974 and 1975, queslioning the action of the Corporation while giving promotion to ccrtain othcr empioyees to the post of Senior Steno Cum P.A. to M D' from the post of Junior Steno, in accordance with the provisions ol the said Regulations in force. It is stated, petitioner did not question/ challenge the specihc orders at the first instance with which he was aggrieved that too within the reasonable time \-- \ 4 limit, if thc sairi orders were presumed to br: issued in contravcntion of the Regulations in force' Henr:e, lhe Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed- It is further stated that the ' Board of thc Corporation in their 1 1/rrr -..1irr* held on 28' 12 1995 have constituted a Sub-Commiltee to go into the arlministrative stmcLure, channel of promotions, pay scales of the employees of the rcspondent Corporation below the category of Warehouse Manager Grade II and make suitable recommendrltions to the Board rvithin two months. The said Contmittee had mcetings / deliberations and accepted the represerltations from the employces' union and hr-rally, submitted its report which u.zrs pl:rce<l belore thc Board of Directors of the Corporation rvhich approvcd the suitable changes/ modiftc:rtions to be carried ol.rt to thc Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Employees Regulations, 1965 based cn the report of Lhc Sub-Committee. The changes/ modifi<:ations thus proposecl got the previous sanction of the Grlvernment of Andhrzr Pradesh and eventually, published in the Official Gazette Part II on 15.O8.2O02 at pages 72OO to 12. 1 ' It is stated that petitioner, on the one hand, contending that the lacuna prevailed then '"1'as illegal and contrary to settlcd cannons o[ service law and on the other' on /"2 5 thc same analory, praying for implemenLation o[ Lhc above changed rule with retrospective effect and give him the notional promotion by drawing a combined senioriLy of Junior Assistants/L.D. Stenos., etc., (though thc pctitioner belong tcr the general cadre) with retrospectivc cffect u'ith all consequenlial/ monetary benefits on par with thc promotions given to the technical cadre post i e Sr' Steno cum-PA tcr M.D./Chairman from L.D. Stenographer to Sri C Raghurama Murthy(since retired on 30.4-2003) and Sri E. Prasacl R:ro (sincc retired on 31.3.2013) during 1974 and 1975 respcctively' at a vcry belated stage more particularly when no suclr provision is available in the said Regulations at any poinl of time' According to this respondent, petitioner was promoted as Sccretary <lirectly (as per the rules prevailed thcn) u,ithout first becoming/ getting promotion as Managcr (rvhich is re-designated as General Manager) at the HO (as prcvailed nolr' u,.e.f. O6. 1'2.2OO7 i.e. after his retirement on 31 i0 2006)' Thus' on one sicle, he got the benefit of the lacuna prcvailed in the rules at the time of getting the promotion as Secretary for which the petitioner did not raise any objection while gctting 1-ris promotion as Secrctary or tried to rectify such lacuna Lhen only' and on the other, he wants the benefit of lacuna prevailed in the said Regulations during 1974 and' 1975 while giving promotion I l I I i l: I I I 6 I to certlrin employccs belonging to other cadrc from L.D. Stcnogr-apher to Sr. Steno-cum-PA to l,4D/Chairman by applying thc samc analogv and drawing corribined seniority of Junior Assistants/L.D. Slcnographer, et<;. irt contravention o[ the saicl Rcgulations prevailed aL that particltl.rr point of time. lt is nlso stated that Sri E. Prasar: llao (since retired on 31.3.20 13), ri hose promotion as Scnior Steno cum-PA to MD/Chrrrrman liom L.D. Stcno during 1975, is being disputcd noq br. pctitioncr alter he got promotion r,s Secrctary. lt is thelefore, pral'ed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

4. Petitioner filed rejoinder denyinr:. the avcrments in the counter afildavit. It is stated, there occurr:c[ some illegalities and anomalies irt thc end of thc respor-rdcnts for their orvn lapses trncl Iatches, [or wl.rich petitiorler was rrterdc to suffer. It is not out o[ placc to mcntion here that adrnittr:dlv, thc sub- committcc subn."tted its rcport long back whi:h was also placed and acc:cpted in the l25rh mccting ol- the 2'I(l rcspondent held on 02 I 08 I I 997, but for reasons best knou'n, publication in lhe ga .ttc r,.-irs <rnlv made on 15 I OB l2OO2. Hou('\'er, the anomalies \\,crc not properly rectified and the loss sull'cred by pelitioner \ ras never mitigated. It is also stated that to get promotion to thc post of Warchousc Manager-lll (eqtrivalent post Sr. Stenographer curn PA to MD), after being promoted to Godown t/ ,] l I l Keepcr) equivalent to UD Stenographer) with effect from

23.09.1977, he had to wait for 11 years after the illegal promotion of Sri.C.Raghuram Murthy. Had there been no illegalities and anomalies, petitioncr would have been promoted to the post of Warehouse Manager Crade-itt 11 years earlicr' The averment of the respondent that petitioner did not object tcr his promotion as Secretary during Augusl 2O05, without becoming Gcneral Manager is not a sound reasoning inasmuch as hc was the senior most at that point of time and to save Sri E. Prasad Rao n,ho u,as the other incumbent promotcd as St' Stenographe r cum PA to M.D/Chairman illegally, he was placed above pel-itioner.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Chavali Ramanand relicd on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi in Shcrik Ahmnad r't' State of Andhra Prad.eshl and contends that delay or laches ir.t approaching the Court may not always be considered as falal to thc legitimate claim of the aggrieved person. The facts and circumstances of each case would determine, to deny or not to deny the claim based on the plea of laches / delay'

6. Sri A. Phani Bhushan, lcarned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the action of respondents does not ' :02j(6),LLo lt5(A.P.XDB) require arly interference at the hands of this Court. he therefore, sccks to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Having considcred (hc respcctive subrnissions at.rd pcrused rhe rccord, iL may bc noted that tho.ugh the posts of .Junior Stcno and Junior Assi stant / Typi st were ,lf equivalent rarlk at the timc of appointmcnt, in vierv of thc arLomalies thal- arose duc to non-existen<:e o[ intcrmcdiary posts to Junior Stcnos, thel obtainecl [asti:r promotions than Junior Assistant/Typists. The Sub-Committee specificall.' constituted to arddress thcse concerns in various cadrcs, incllding Junior Stenos and Junior Assistants, mitdc rccolnmendations in May I 996 to grant higher scalcs as t hat o[ Junior Sitenos, while making similar rccommc--r.td:tt ion s to other cadres of lhe organization. 'l'he recommcnd:rtions w'ere approved by the Bozrrd in August 1997. Petitioner u'as il.t scrvicc at the relevallt time of recommendations in Mat' 1996 and he retired frou service after a decade i.e. in 20O6, and I're filcd this writ Pctitior in 2O13 i.e., al'Le r sevcn frcars of rctirement; thus, lhere is a delay of 17 years. 8- Though the learned counsel for the pcr-itioner relied on thc judgment of the High Court of Andhra Prad:sh in Shaik Ahmmad.'s case (supra), it is to bc noted that petir-ioner therein u,zrs noj accountable for thc clela.v. However, in the inslant case, 9 the very constitution of Sub-Committee in 1996 was to examine the anomalies in promotion channels and pay scales of various cadres and pctitioner herein who is on the aggrieved side of the fence alleging that Junior Stenos have bypassed an intermediary step (equivalent of Senior Assistant) and directly jumped up to the post of PA to MD and there is huge pay differencc, has no reason to commit delay in seeking any benefit accruable duc to Sub-Commitlee recommendation. It is not the case of pctitioner that he was nol even aware of the sub- committcc recommcndations of 7996, or that he was nol permitted to make application for the benefit at the relevanl time. There is no plausible explanation from him as to why such inordinate delay of 17 years has occurred in seeking alleged monetary benefits on account of non-implementation of sub- commit[ee recommendations in his case. Mere delay/laches would not disentitle the legitimate rights, however, that does not mean that petitioner can seek the beneht/ remedy at his own convenience without regard to the reasonableness of the delay.

9. It may be noted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a delay of three to four years would be a reasonable period, and any period more than that would require satisfactory explanation. In the instant case, petitioner, except venting out the grievance of anomaly in pay scales and double promotions 7 ) ( 1t) obtained by other cadres, nothing is placed on rr:cord to show the steps he has taken to bring to the notice of authoritres his cligibilitl and cntitlernent to the benelits uncer the Sub_ Committee recommendalions, and requesting tr: provide the benefits at the relevant time. L,r the absence ol such due diligence on the part of petit ioner, raising the issuLe of anomaly a,d non implementation of Sub-committee recom r-renrlations in his case, afler a lapse of 17 years, does not merit c,nsideration. 10. Further, as statecl by the Secrcrary of the Corporation, in the counter, petitioner on the one hancl, got the bcnefit of the lacuna prevailcd at ttrc time of gettirrg promotion as Secretary for u,hich he did not raisc any objection and on the other, he wants the benefit of lacuna prcvailed in the said Rcgulation during 1974 and 1975 while giving l)romotron to certain cmployces belonging to othcr cadre from L.D. Stenographe r to Senior Steno cum pA to MD / C hairman by applying the same ana1op5, and clrawing combinecl seliority of .Junior Assistants/L.D. Stenographcrs, etcctera in t tntravention of the saicl Regulations prevailed at that particular Lime. In fact, E. Prasacl Rao r,r,as promoted as Senior Steno cum pA to MD/Chairman from L.D. Stenographer in 1975 and now pctitioner has been disputing the same in 2O13 and meanwhile, he was promotecl as Secrclary in 20Og.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the cor-rsidered view that Wrrt Petition is liable to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

12. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall sland closed. //TRUE COPY// \ To 1 2 One CC to SRI CHAVALI RAIVANAND, Advocate One CC to SRI A.PHANI BHUSHAN, Advocate [OP Two CD Copies PSK. crP ili/ SD/. A. JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 I ORDER WP.No.13627 of 2013

9. f liE g ( \ ,( o O ,.) 1 1 ,l llt[ f, f- z o M *1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 tV b