Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 558 (AP)

Muni Swamy Gurram v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-04

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion in the cadres of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and also Prohibition and Excise Superintendent by duly taking into consideration the national date of seniority assigned to the petitioner in the cadre of Prohibition and Excise Inspector with effect from 01.09.1999 in the panel year 1999-2000 as per seniority list issued by the 2nd respondent in Cr.No.1136/2019, dated 12.04.2019 with all consequential benefits like pay fixation, monetary benefits etc., in terms of F.R.26 (aa) by holding the action of the respondents in not assigning notional seniority to the petitioner in the higher cadres of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and also Prohibition and Excise Superintendent consequent on awarding notional seniority in the lower cadre of Prohibition and Excise Inspector, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order." 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner requested this Court without touching the merits of the case to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 23.10.2019, 19.11.2019 and 17.01.2020. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I readily agreed to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 23.10.2019, 19.11.2019 and 17.01.2020, if any, pending with the respondent authorities. 4. In view of the submissions of learned Government Pleader for Services-I, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. 5. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh, (2019) 8 Scale 544 wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 23.10.2019, 19.11.2019 and 17.01.2020, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 23.10.2019, 19.11.2019 and 17.01.2020, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of , directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 23.10.2019, 19.11.2019 and 17.01.2020, in accordance with law, within six (06) weeks from today. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.