IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 25735 of 2002 Between: 1. S.V.B.Anand, S/o. Late KonadalRao 33/11 KV,Aryavatam sub-Station, Aryavatam, Kajuluru Mandal, E.G.district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Divisional Engineer(Electrical) Operation Power House Corporation Ramaraopet, Kakinada, E.G.district. 2 Superintendent Engineer (Operation) Old MRT Office,godavari Bund, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Chairman & Managing Director Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Rep byits CMD, Saraswati Park, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or Writ Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in reckoning the date of joining of the petitioner as 1-4-96 wiping away the service rendered by him till then from 07/12/85 in the guise of conversion as a helper at his request as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 16 of constitution of India, and to issue a consequential direction to restore the seniority of the petitioner with eﬀect the from 07/12/85 and also to promote him as Assistant Lineman and upwards from the date of the promotion of his junior N.Eswara Rao on national basis. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the respondents, by way of issuing a Writ of Mandamus, in reckoning the date of joining of the petitioner as 01-04-1996 wiping away the service rendered by him till then from 07-12-1985 in the guise of conversion as a Helper at his request as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 16 of Constitution of India and to issue a consequential direction to restore the seniority of the petitioner with eﬀect from 07- 12-1985 and also to promote him as Assistant Lineman and upwards from the date of the promotion of his junior N. Eswara Rao on notional basis. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working in A.P.S.E.B. and he died while in service. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Blue Print Operator (for short ‘the B.P.O.). The incumbent of that post Mr. G. Venkateswara Rao was promoted as Assistant Lineman and the petitioner was appointed in his place. Along with the petitioner one N. Eswara Rao was also given compassionate appointment as Helper vide proceedings dated 30-11-1985. It is the case of the petitioner that it is clear from the fact that from the promotion of G. Venkateswara Rao that B.P.O is a feeder post for Assistant Lineman. The petitioner was continued as a B.P.O till 1996, while persons appointed subsequent to him in the last grade posts were given promotions as Assistant Lineman, Lineman etc. He submitted that N. Eswara Rao, who appointed along with him on compassionate grounds as a Helper, got promotions as Assistant Lineman on 21-12-1988, as Lineman on 31-12-1990 and as Line Inspector on 27-03- 2001. Mr. G. Venkateswara Rao, got promotion from the post of B.P.O., to the post of Assistant Lineman on 04-12-1985, as Lineman on 21-12-1988 and Line Inspector on 01-06-1998. It is submitted that the petitioner was making representations to the authorities to promote him as Assistant Lineman and for the next higher posts but the same were not considered nor any reply was given but he was orally informed that there is no channel of promotion from the post of B.P.O. and for want of promotion he should get converted as a Helper. He was also informed that he should be prepared to take last rank among the Helpers. Having not secured promotion for a period of 11 years, he submitted a letter to the 2nd respondent in 1996 seeking conversion as Helper agreeing for taking last rank. Thereafter he was converted as Junior Lineman (Helper) on 01-04-1996 and was given promotions as Assistant Lineman and Lineman on 14-04-1998 and 06-04-2000, respectively showing him as junior most person by treating his entry into service as 01-04-1996 as a Helper. The entire service rendered by him from 07-12-1985 to 01-04-1996 has been wiped out. He made representations to the authorities seeking to restore his seniority and promote him as Line Inspector on par with his junior N. Eswara Rao and others. He was informed vide letter dated 08-02-2002 that the post of B.P.O. is not a feeder post to get promotion as Assistant Lineman etc. and hence his request for restoration of the seniority has no merit. Therefore, he submits that the stand taken by the respondents is evidently erroneous and discriminatory as G. Venkateswara Rao got promotion within two years from the date of joining as B.P.O. to the post of Assistant Lineman. It is further submitted that the post of Helper is also belonging to O & M division carrying the same pay scale as B.P.O. and persons joined as Helpers subsequent to him got promotions much earlier to him. Denying promotion to him for more than a decade in the name of lack of promotional channel is illegal when others were given promotions. It is only out of frustration that he agreed to get converted as a Helper in 1996 and to take last rank in the seniority, that too at the guidance of the then D.E. A.V.S.N.Raju. It is only when he realized that he was misguided whereby he sought for conversion accepting to take last rank, he started making representations for restoration of his seniority and also for notionally promoting him from the date of promotion of his juniors. There is no justiﬁcation in depriving the service rendered by the petitioner for over a period of 11 years when he could have been promoted from the post of B.P.O. itself as was done in the case of G. Venkateswara Rao. The case of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he is entitled to notional promotion from the date of promotion of his junior N.Eswara Rao as Assistant Lineman for consequential promotions on par with him at least on notional basis notwithstanding that he petitioner accepted for taking last rank on conversion as Helper. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. No counter has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Blue Print Operator on compassionate grounds on 07-12-1985. Though the petitioner was entitled to promotion of Assistant Lineman but he was not promoted for a period of 11 years on untenable ground that there was no promotion channel from the post of B.P.O. to the post of Assistant Lineman. Though the several others, like G. Venkateswara Rao, were promoted from the post of B.P.O. to the post of Assistant Lineman, Lineman and Line Inspector, which beneﬁt was denied to the petitioner. She also submitted that the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Kakinada issued a Memo dated 08-02-2002 stating that the petitioner having joined as BPO he has not had the chance nor right to claim any seniority for the Lineman cadre in comparison with his colleagues who joined as Helper service and the B.P.O. post is not a feeder post. The stand of the respondent is discriminatory and unsustainable, since G. Venkateswara Rao was promoted as an Assistant Lineman from the post of Blue Print Operator only. Therefore, she submits that the petitioner is entitled to restoration of his seniority taking into consideration the date of his appointment as Blue Print Operator with effect from 07-12-1985. From a perusal of the record and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as B.P.O. on 07-12-1985 and later on he was converted to the post of Helper for want of promotion since he was advised that there is no promotion channel from the post of Blue Print Operator. Later on he got promotions as an Assistant Lineman and Lineman. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied for promotion when he was working as Blue Print Operator for a period of 11 years and he was misguided and committed in writing that he wants conversion to the post of Helper and taking last rank in the seniority of Helper post. After having realized the injustice caused to him he made a representation dated 06-09-2001 claiming seniority over others. On the said representation the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Kakinada issued a letter dated 08-02-2002 stating as follows: “Sri S.V.B. Anand was appointed as on 7.12.85 on compassionate grounds as Blue print Operator against existing vacancy at that point of time. At the time of appointment having joined as BPO he has not had the chance nor right to claim any seniority for the Lineman cadre in comparison with his colleagues who joined as Helper service the Blue Print Operator post is not a feeder post. On this analogy he cannot compare and claim right with others who joined as helper since the Helper post is a feeder post to cadre of Lineman. As regards ﬁxing up of seniority with due reference to his counterparts, there is no provision either in OSS Non statutory rules on the standing instructions of Board including that of service regulations. Each cadre is governed by separate unit and an employee joined in MRT wing cannot claim seniority with that his collegue joined in Operation and Vice-versa. The promotions are subject to creation of post and vacancies arising in due course. On this analogy he cannot claim seniority over others as a matter of right. Taking all these factors into consideration, the Board has framed certain rules and regulations besides issuing working instructions which were adopted by A.P. Transco in letter and spirit. The general good of employees was the criterian in a broad spectrum and the rules framed there on were for a common cause. In such a scenario restoration of seniority reckoning the service put in the cadre of Blue Print Operator which is not a feeder post at all for claiming seniority in Lineman cadre is unsustainable as per Law and no revision can even be ordered in view of the above mentioned factors as it leads to legal litigation.” From a perusal of the seniority list furnished by the petitioner at material page No.13 of this writ petition which reveals that G. Venkateswara Rao stated to have been appointed on 01-11-1983 as Blue Print Operator (O&M) and whereas the petitioner was appointed as Blue Print Operator (O&M) on 07-12-1985. According to the petitioner G. Venkateswara Rao was promoted, as Assistant Lineman from the post of B.P.O. on 04-12-1985 and the said place was fell vacant against which the petitioner was appointed as B.P.O. in the existing vacancy. It is clear from the Memo dated 08-02-2002 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as B.P.O. against existing vacancy. Therefore, non-considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Lineman from the post of B.P.O. is not justifiable. Since none appeared on behalf of the respondents and no counter is ﬁled in this writ petition mentioning rules and regulations governed by the respondents with reference to the seniority and promotions, the issue of seniority claimed by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated based on the material made available by the petitioner on record. Though the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Kakinada issued a Memo dated 08-02-2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the same does not contain as to what are the rules and regulations governed by the respondents and under which provisions the case of the petitioner was rejected and under which provisions G. Vekateshwara Rao was promoted and why the petitioner is not entitled to the same beneﬁt on par with G. Venkateshwara Rao. No justiﬁable reason has been assigned for not taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner with eﬀect from 07-12-1985 but considering the same only from 01-04-1996. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that Memo dated 08-02-2002 issued by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Kakinada is liable to be set aside on the ground that no justiﬁable or valid reasons have been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Though it is mentioned that as per the rules and regulations the petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority, but no rules and regulations have been speciﬁed in detail. However, the claim of the petitioner is to reckon the service rendered by him as Blue Print Operator with effect from 07-12-1985 for further promotion and he also states that his case needs to be considered as he stands on the same footing as that of G.Venkateswara Rao. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper on the part of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner quoting the rules and regulations as well the provision under which the said G. Venkateswara Rao was promoted from the post of Blue Print Operator to the post of Assistant Lineman and why the petitioner is not entitled to the same beneﬁt. Accordingly, the Memo dated 08-02-2002 is set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and since the Memo dated 08-02-2002 is set aside, I deem it appropriate to remit the case of the petitioner to the respondents for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as indicated above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 06-09-2008 LSK