IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 33653 of 1998 Between: Sri.D.Radha Krishna, S/o Sri Balaiah, R/o Nizamabad Town, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Member Secretary, APSEB, Vidyuth Soudha Hyderabad-82. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APSEB, Nizamabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer, Electrical Opearion, APSEB, Nizamabad. ....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 to call for the records relating to the Memo.No.DS(Estt)/AS(pen)/O & M-III/710/98-3, dt.5-11-98 on the file on the 1st respondent and the consequential Memo No.CO/Adm/C2/F.516/98-1, dt.13-11-98 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegl by way of issue of , writ of, certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or orders as the hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ANDAPALLI SANJEEV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 33653 of 1998 O R D E R: Heard Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents, though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The orders impugned in this writ petition are the proceedings of the first respondent dated 05-11-1998 and the consequential memo of the second respondent dated 13-11-1998. The petitioner claims to have studied upto 8th class in the academic year 1964-65 and to have obtained a certificate in I.T.I (Welder Course). He was appointed as a Helper and was promoted as a Lineman in the year 1980. He was promoted to the post of Line Inspector with effect from 01-10-1996. The qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Line Inspector is a pass in the 9th class. On the ground that the petitioner did not possess the qualification of 9th class, and was erroneously promoted to the post of Line Inspector the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 05-11-1998, informed the second respondent that the petitioner’s promotion from the post of Lineman to Line Inspector was irregular and that his having passed 8th class during 1964-65 at Siddipet ZPHS School could not be treated as having passed 9th class. Consequent thereto, the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 13-11-1998, directed the third respondent to comply with the said order dated 05-11-1998 and report compliance. Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in view of G.O.Ms.No.930, dated 12-04-1958 candidates who passed 8th class from Secondary Schools in Telangana area prior to the academic year 1968-69 were required to be treated as having passed 9th class. Learned counsel would submit that the said G.O was adopted by the Board vide memo dated 13-06-1989 and a copy thereof was sent to the Chief Engineers/Superintending Engineers for adoption in respect of educational qualifications acquired by employees prior to 1968-69, under the scheme of SSLC/HSC for the purpose of recruitment/promotion against the Board posts. The third respondent, vide letter dated 14-05-1998, informed the second respondent that, in view of the Board instructions issued on 13-06-1989, the petitioner, who had passed 8th class from a Secondary School in Telangana area in the academic year 1964-65, was fully qualified to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Line Inspector and that he was accordingly promoted as a Line Inspector on 01-10-1996. He further informed that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Line Inspector was in order. Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner had passed 8th class from Siddipet Higher Secondary School which was in the erstwhile Telangana area and which, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.930 dated 12-04-1958, was treated as equivalent to a pass in the 9th class. According to the learned counsel, since the said Government Order had been adopted by the Board the petitioner should, for all purposes including that of promotion, have been treated as having passed the 9th class. According to the learned counsel since the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Line Inspector is a pass in the 9th class the petitioner, having fulfilled the prescribed qualifications, was entitled to be promoted as Line Inspector and the action of the first respondent, in holding that he was not entitled for promotion, was illegal. In the proceedings dated 05-11-1998, the first respondent informed the second respondent that a pass in the 8th class during the year 1964-65 could not be treated as equivalent to a pass in the 9th class. In the said proceedings no reference has been made to G.O.Ms.No.930 dated 12-04-1958 or to the Board’s Memo dated 13-06-1989. There is, however, a reference to the letter dated 21-07-1998. The second respondent, in his letter dated 21-07-1998, informed the Board, after referring to the Board’s letter dated 24-04-1998 and to the clarification issued by the Board on 22-12-1997, that the petitioner was promoted as a Line Inspector on 26-09-1996 prior to the clarification of the Board dated 22-12-1997. The contention of Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, the learned counsel, is that, since the petitioner had been promoted as a Line Inspector in accordance with the instructions then existing and as the clarification given by the Board on 22-12-1997 was only after he was promoted, the petitioner could not be singled out for cancellation of the promotion given earlier when several other employees were given such a benefit. Learned counsel also submits that, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner continued to work with the Board as a Line Inspector till he retired on reaching the age of superannuation in October, 2007. Since the petitioner has discharged the functions of a Line Inspector, albeit pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, till he retired from service in October, 2007, even if the action of the Board in holding that he was not entitled to be promoted were to find acceptance, the respondents would not be entitled to recover the differential salary since he had discharged the functions of a Line Inspector. The question whether G.O.Ms.No.930 dated 12-04-1958, which was adopted by the Board in its memo dated 13-06-1989, would necessitate the Board to treat the petitioner’s qualification, of having passed 8th class in the academic year 1964-65 from the Siddipet Higher Secondary School, as equivalent to 9th class, whether the clarification dated 22-12-1997 would justify the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the post of Line Inspector, when the said clarification had not even be issued when the petitioner was promoted as Line Inspector on 26-09-1996 are all matters which are required to be examined by the first respondent. Sri A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, despite the petitioner having retired from service, he has not been paid his terminal benefits for the past 4 months and that his pension has also not been released. There is no justification whatsoever on the part of the respondents in withholding the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. Since the dispute relates only to the entitlement of the petitioner to be promoted as Line Inspector and, since he admittedly discharged the functions of a Lineman ever since he was appointed to the said post in the year 1980, the petitioner ought to have forthwith been paid, atleast, the terminal benefits applicable to the post of Lineman, instead of awaiting the outcome of this writ petition. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to compute the terminal benefits, including the pension, payable to the petitioner in the post of a Lineman and direct them to make payment of the amounts so computed forthwith, in any event not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall, in the light of the various orders issued by the Government and by the Board from time to time, and in the light of the observations mentioned hereinabove, examine whether the petitioner’s promotion as Line Inspector on 26-09- 1996 is in order and, if it finds that the said promotion is in accordance with the various orders hereinbefore mentioned, then compute the differential amounts payable towards terminal benefits and pension for the post of Line Inspector and make payment within a period of two months thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan,J Dated 19th February, 2008 Note: Issue C.C in a week (b/o) vrn ` ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Member Secretary, APSEB, Vidyuth Soudha Hyderabad-82. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APSEB, Nizamabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer, Electrical Opearion, APSEB, Nizamabad. 4 2CD copies