IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27980 of 2008 Between: V. Sambareddy, S/o. Rajireddy, M.P. Mahadevpur, Karimnagar District, (Retired), R/o. 10-1-723, Lane No.7, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Karimnagar. .....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 directionmore in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Judgement of the A.P. Administrtive Tribunal in O.a.No. 2058 of 2006, dated 31-10-2008 and Memo No. 10711/CPR & RE/13-ZP/2002, dated 24-11-2004 issued by the Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., Hyderabad and the orders of Government in Memo No. 12651/Estt.V/05-3, PR & RD., dated 3-3-2006 as illegal and contrary tothe material on record and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and Superintendent from the date on which his juniors were promoted to the said post on the analogy of promotions of similarly situated persons like Anjaiah and Mohd. Raziuddin with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Judgment of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 2058 of 2006, dated 31.10.2008 and memo No. 10711/CPR &RE/13- ZP/2002 dated 24.11.2004 issued by the Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P. Hyderabad and the orders of Government in Memo No. 12651/Estt.V/05-3, PR&RD, dated 3.3.2006 as illegal and contrary. O.A. was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying the Tribunal to call for the records relating to the impugned Memo No. 10711/CPR.& RE/13-ZP/2002 dated 24.11.2004 issued by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment and the orders of Government in Memo No. 12651/.Estt. V/05-3, PR&RD dated 3.3.2006 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the O.A that the applicant retired as a Junior Assistant in Mandal Parishad, Mahadevpur, Karimnagar District. His case is that some of his juniors were promoted as Senior Assistants from 6.10.1994 and further as Superintendents with effect from 13.10.1999. It is also stated that he was under suspension on certain financial irregularities in the Mandal Parishad, but however, reinstated into duty on 14.3.1997. He was not considered for promotion, even after his reinstatement on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and his juniors were promoted and continued in the higher post of Senior Assistants and Superintendents. It is further stated that some of the persons who were promoted, were also facing the disciplinary proceedings at the time of their promotion. The applicant claims that some of the other persons, who were facing the disciplinary proceedings were promoted but he was not promoted. Hence, he preferred O.A. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent therein submitted that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant were concluded through the proceedings of the third respondent dated 26.12.2000 imposing a penalty of withholding two annual grade increments without cumulative effect and, therefore, the increments, which fell due from March, 1998 were not sanctioned. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record held that even assuming for a moment that in some cases individuals who are facing the disciplinary proceedings were promoted in violation of the Rules, it does not entitle the Applicant to seek parity with such individuals. His case is clear and he was rightly bye-passed for promotion in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately ended in a punishment. It held that there are no merits in the application and accordingly the O.A ended in dismissal. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant-petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the O.A. He also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioner made several representations to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and Superintendent on the analogy of promotions of similarly situated persons and the said representations were ultimately rejected by the impugned proceedings and therefore, there was no delay in ventilating his grievances before the Tribunal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. As observed by the Tribunal the petitioner case is based on negative equality stating that when some of the individuals, who were also facing the disciplinary proceedings were promoted, he was not promoted. Further, the claim of the petitioner in so far as the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is concerned, the promotions of his juniors took place in the year 1994 and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to question the promotions effected in 1994 belatedly after his retirement from service. The Tribunal rightly held that though in some cases individuals who are acing the disciplinary proceedings were promoted in violation of the Rules, it does not entitle the applicant to seek parity with such individuals. As seen from the record, the case of the petitioner was rightly bye-passed for promotion in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately ended in a punishment. Therefore, we see no error in the order impugned in the Writ Petition warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 24.12.2008 KA ------ REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Karimnagar. 4. 2 CC to G.P. for Services II, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad 5.2CD copies