Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 559 (TS)

K. Tirupathi v. Chief General Manager, APNPDCL

2022-08-26

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, K.SARATH

body2022
JUDGMENT : ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 11917 of 2004 dated 01-04-2015. 2. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It has been contended by the appellant that initially he was appointed on compassionate grounds as Watchman on 21-05-1999 and his probation was declared on 20-05-2021. The appellant has further contended that while he was discharging his duties as Watchman, the respondents had considered the case of appellant for conversion as Lineman Driver, in view of the fact that the appellant was possessing requisite qualification as well as driving licence on 21-06-2021 and since then he has been discharging his duties as Lineman Driver. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle which was driven by the appellant has been taken as “not road worthy”. In those set of circumstances, the respondents have deputed the appellant to work in the operation and maintenance unit vide proceedings dated 23-01-2022 and the appellant discharging his duties as lineman. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that when a vacancy of Lineman has arisen, appellant has requested the respondents to consider his case for conversion from the Lineman Driver to Lineman and the respondents have conducted a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 07-08-2003 and the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has cleared the name of appellant for conversion from the Lineman Driver to Lineman against roster point No. 14 and law. The Divisional Engineer has sought clarification from the Chief General Manager as to whether the appellant can be converted from the post of Lineman Driver to Lineman vide proceedings dated 01-11-2003 and the Chief General Manager has clarified vide proceedings dated 18-01-2004 that the case of the appellant can be considered as the pay-scale of Lineman Driver and Lineman are one and the same and in pursuance to the clarification given by the Chief General Manager and D.E. had converted the appellant from the post of Lineman Driver to Lineman vide proceedings dated 27-01-2004. While the appellant was discharging the duties of Lineman after six months the respondents have issued proceedings dated 08-07-2004 cancelling the conversion on the ground that the regular driver one K. Yerraiah has retired from service on 30-06-2004 and posted the appellant back as Lineman Driver. 5. Challenging the same, a writ petition was preferred before this Court and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the case erroneously without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that a regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has considered the case of appellant and recommended for conversion from the post of Lineman Driver to Lineman against a regular vacancy, that too, at a roster point No. 14 and the Divisional Engineer has issued proceedings converting the appellant from the Lineman Driver to Lineman vide proceedings dated 27-01-2004 and the learned Single Judge has merely considered the case of the appellant only on the ground that the pay scale of Lineman and that of Lineman Driver is one and the same and no prejudice would be caused to the appellant and erroneously dismissed the said writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had further contended that when the appellant was converted from the post of Lineman Driver to Lineman by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), that too against a regular vacancy at roster No. 14, the respondents could not have cancelled the conversion by impugned orders dated 08-07-2004, therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as cancelling the conversion orders dated 08-07-2004 and allow the writ appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had further contended that the appellant was converted from the post of Lineman Driver to that of Lineman vide proceedings dated 27-01-2004 making it very clear that the conversion is purely temporary and the appellant can be reverted at any time without informing. As and when regular vacancy arises consequent upon the retirement of K. Yerraiah, the respondents have rightly cancelled the conversion orders. 9. As and when regular vacancy arises consequent upon the retirement of K. Yerraiah, the respondents have rightly cancelled the conversion orders. 9. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the respondents have converted the appellant from the post of Lineman Driver to that of Lineman by duly considering the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), that too, against a clear vacancy at roster No. 14 and the Divisional Engineer has converted the appellant from the Lineman Driver to Lineman after obtaining clarification from the Chief General Manager which would mean that the conversion was in accordance with the rules and the cancellation orders were issued at the instance of Superintending Engineer, subordinate to that of Chief General Manager, therefore, cancellation orders issued on 08-07-2004 are contrary to law and the order of learned Single Judge find erroneous. 10. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned orders passed in Writ Petition No. 11917 of 2015 dated 01-04-2015 are set aside and consequently the cancellation orders dated 08-07-2004 are also set aside. No costs. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.