IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7628 of 2008 Between: Sri G. Appa Rao S/o. G. Chinnappanna age 44 yrs, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,. R/o. Patha Ayyannapalem, Pedagantyada RHC Visakhapatnam-530 022 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman -Cum-Managing Director, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. 2 Superintendent ,Energy Management Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to promote the petitioner herein to S-8 Grade on par with my junior Sri G. Sanyasi Rao, who is the in Serial number 20th and to pay all other allowances of S-8 Grade with arrears and continuation of service within a period of one month and declare in not promoting the petitioner to S-8 Grade on par with his junior who is in serial no. 20 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7628 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant on 01.08.1982. He was confirmed in that post on 31.01.1983 and subsequently, promoted to S-4 Grade with effect from 31.12.1990. Vide proceedings, dated 04.02.2008, the respondents placed the petitioner in S-5 Grade and re-designated him as ‘Master OCM (ME)’. The petitioner contends that several employees, who were juniors to him, had been placed in the superior posts and higher Grades, ignoring his seniority. He cites the instance of one Mr. G. Sanyasi Rao, shown at Serial No.20 in the office order, dated 04.02.2008. By drawing comparison, the petitioner claims the relief of a direction to the 2nd respondent to promote him to S-8 Grade on par with Mr. G. Sanyasi Rao. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It may be true that the petitioner and Mr. G. Sanyasi Rao functioned as Drivers in the same category and Grade, at one point of time or the other. The fact, however, remains that by the time the office order, dated 04.02.2008, came to be issued, the petitioner was found in S-4 Grade, whereas Mr. Sanyasi Rao was in S-7 Grade. This disparity had come into existence over a period, on account of denial of promotion or upgradation to the petitioner, for one reason or the other. Unless the petitioner assails the denial of promotion or upgradation on par with Mr. Sanyasi Rao, at the relevant stage, the impugned office order cannot be assailed. The office order is only a reflection of the respective seniorities and by itself, it did not bring about any disparity between the petitioner and Mr.Sanyasi Rao. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to ascertain as to when and how Mr.Sanyasi Rao was given a superior position to him, and thereafter, work out his remedies, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 11.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7628 of 2008 Date: 11.04.2008 JSU