THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No :7539 of 2000 Order: Assailing the order passed in C.M.A. No. 26 of 1995, dated 29.12.1998 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, whereby and whereunder the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners while confirming the order dated 25.3.1995 of the Authority under Payment of Wages Act-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, the 2nd respondent herein made in P.W . No 3/94. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent herein has worked as L.D.C. in ‘C’ seat in the office of the Operational Divisional Engineer, Nidadavlu from 27.7.1979 to 5.7.1986. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Office of the 2nd petitioner herein. While so, on a complaint received by the 2nd petitioner, an enquiry was conducted into the said complaint and the Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted his report. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the department passed final order on 31.10.1990 imposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, in addition to ordering of recovery of the amount of Rs.38,742.40 ps,. being the excess amount paid to Sri Y. Gopalam, Lineman towards the wages paid for the period he has worked after the due date of superannuation and till the date on which he was actually retired from service. Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Rajahmundry on 19.11.1990. However, during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent, when the petitioners have initiated action for deducting the amounts from the pay bills of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent filed a case before the Authority under the Payment of wages Act seeking a direction to the departmental authorities for payment of the amounts deducted from out of his salary for the period from May,1994 till that date. In addition to this, he also sought for payment of compensation for the financial losses sustained by him. The Authority, through order dated 25.3.1995, disposed of the said case with a direction to the petitioners to deposit the amount recovered from the pay bills of the 1st respondent from 5/94 to till that date along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- immediately. In addition to this, the Authority also directed the departmental authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of U.D.C., subject to the fulfilment of the eligibility criteria. Challenging the said order, the department carried the matter in appeal before the 3rd respondent herein and the third respondent through order dated 29.12.1998, dismissed the said appeal, while confirming the order of the learned I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. Aggrieved, the department filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Even though the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the department has contended before the learned District Judge, the 3rd respondent herein stating that the appeal has been dismissed by the 1st petitioner, while confirming the orders of the 2nd petitioner dated 31.10.1990, but he did not file a copy of the said order before him, in the absence of which, the learned District Judge, rightly directed the department not to recover the amount from the 1st respondent till the appeal is finally disposed of by the 1st petitioner. Even before this Court also, the very same contention has been advanced by the learned Standing Counsel stating that the appeal has been dismissed by the 1st petitioner while confirming the order of the 2nd petitioner, but the learned Standing Counsel failed to file a copy of the said order even before this Court, in the absence of which, I also do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned District Judge dated 29.12.1998 in so far as directing the department not to recover the amount from the 1st respondent till the appeal filed by him is disposed of by the 1st petitioner. In so far as the finding of the Authority under payment of Wages Act, as confirmed by the District Judge in C.M.A. No.26/1995 with regard to the direction given to the department to consider the case of the 1st respondent for promotion as U.D.C., in the immediate future is concerned, the 2nd respondent authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in giving such a direction. Admittedly, promotion is a matter which is governed by the service Rules and the authority has no jurisdiction to issue such a direction and the same is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated above. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 12th August, 2010 pnb