THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 14935 of 1999 Dated: 22.04.2010 Between: Sreeramulu … Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer, A.P., Transco, Nizamabad and others. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ petition No. 14935 of 1999 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for awarding the Special Promotion Post Scale-I is arbitrary and illegal. The facts in brief are as under: The petitioner was appointed as LDC in A.P.Transco on 16.01.1980. He was promoted to the post of UDC vide proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 06.12.1995. Pursuant thereto, he was relieved from the post of LDC and joined as UDC on 17.01.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation for grant of Special Promotion Post Scale-I under the automatic advancement scheme claiming that as he had completed 16 years of service as LDC, he was entitled to the said benefit in terms of B.P (P&G Per) Ms.No. 295 dated 01.11.1994. The said request was rejected by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 19.04.1999 on the ground that by the date of his promotion to the post of UDC, vide order dated 06.12.1995, the petitioner did not complete the required service of 16 years. It was also stated that the fact that the petitioner was relieved from the post of LDC only on 16.01.1996 was irrelevant and therefore, he was ineligible for the benefit of the Special Promotion Post Scale-I. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Despite notice, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is true that the order was passed on 06.12.1995 promoting the petitioner to the post of UDC. Admittedly, by 06.12.1995, the petitioner did not complete the 16 years of continuous service, which is a condition precedent for grant of Special Promotion Post Scale-I. However, it is pleaded by the petitioner that he was relieved from the post of LDC on 17.01.1996 and the delay was only due to administrative grounds. The plea of the petitioner that he was relieved from the post of LDC on 17.01.1996 only on administrative grounds was not disputed by the respondents. The fact that as on 17.01.1996 the petitioner has completed 16 years of continuous service is also not in dispute. However, the petitioner’s claim for the Special Promotion Post Scale-I was rejected on the ground that for grant of the special benefit, the date on which the promotion order was issued alone was relevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner while bringing to the notice of this Court the fact that the probation of the petitioner in the post of UDC commenced only on 17.01.1996 and his probation was completed on 16.01.1997, vehemently contended that as the petitioner was actually relieved from the post of LDC on 17.01.1996 and even the integrated seniority list of UDC was issued by the 1st respondent taking into consideration the petitioner’s seniority with effect from 17.01.1996 and even his services were regularized in the cadre of UDC from 17.01.1996 and probation was declared on 16.01.1997, there was absolutely no justifiable reason to reject his claim for Special Promotion Post Scale-I on the ground that he had not completed the required services as LDC. It is contended that the procedure adopted by the respondents had defeated the very object of the scheme under which the Special Promotion Post Sale-I was granted and as the petitioner had actually served in the post of LDC till 17.01.1996, the period from 06.12.1995 i.e. the date of order of promotion till 17.01.1996 i.e. the date on which he was relieved from the post of LDC cannot be ignored. Admittedly, the petitioner completed 16 years of continuous service, which is required for grant of Special Promotion Post Scale-I after the date of promotion order and before he was relieved from the post of LDC. The plea of the petitioner that he could be relieved from the post of LDC on 17.01.1996 only on account of administrative grounds is not disputed by the respondents. It is also the case of the petitioner that so far as the extension of benefit of pay revision and regularization of pay are concerned, on many occasions the respondents took into consideration the actual date of relief from the post for rectifying the anomalies. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim for payment of Special Promotion Post Scale-I requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.04.1999 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s claim and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is hereby granted liberty to make a fresh representation placing all the relevant material with regard to the precedents, if any, to substantiate his claim within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 22.04.2010 KLP