GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH S RAMAMONOHARA RAO Vs. M A KAREEM:GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on September 14,1990

Government Of Andhra Pradesh S Ramamonohara Rao Appellant
VERSUS
M A Kareem:Government Of Andhra Pradesh Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K N SHARMA VS. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1999-7-19] [RELIED ON]
V K MALHOTRA VS. CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPN LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2004-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
NIREN BARUAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1999-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
SUREN PATOWARY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI PUNDALIKA SAVANNA KALADAGI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE MEDICAL [LAWS(KAR)-2006-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
Y KATTEPPA VS. UNIVERSITIES OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES REP [LAWS(KAR)-2007-9-75] [REFERRED TO]
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TECHNICAL SERVICES POLICE TELECOMMUNICATION CHENNAI VS. A MALAICHAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-360] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
PUSPA KANTA GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR DAS & ANR. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2013-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA NATH MUDOI & ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-12-39] [REFERRED TO]
T L RANGANATHAN VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-257] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANNA HARI JAMATIA VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-3-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Civilno. 173 of 1986by the judgment a under appeal the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal has accepted the claim of seniority pressed by the respondents in their Representation Petition No. 1589 of 1983.
(2.)The respondents were working as lx) wer Division Clerks (LDCs) in the district police offices/units in Andhra Pradesh, when the question of appointing LDCs in the Chief Office arose. It was decided to give an opportunity to the LDCs working in the district police offices/units on the condition that they would be willing not to rely upon their service rendered in the district police offices/units for the purpose of seniority and that their seniority would be counted with effect from the date they joined the Chief Office. Accordingly a Memorandum Re. No. 1020/si/68 dated 21/11/1968 (Annexure 'a') was issued to the district police offices/units. The choice was limited to probationers and approved probationers having good service records. The letter expressly stated that the appointees were to be put at the bottom of the list of probationers or approved probationers already working in the Chief Office. Immediately thereafter the respondents and two other LDCs, who are not parties to the present case, expressed their desire to join the Chief Office on the condition as mentioned in the said memorandum. They in positive terms declared in Annx. 'c' series their willingness to forgo their seniority. After examination of their service records, orders were passed and accordingly Memorandum Re. No. 1020/si/68 dated 1/06/1970 (Annexure 'd') was issued to the heads of departments of the concerned district police offices/units. A pointed reference to the memorandum of Novernber 21, 1968 was made staling that the clerks in question were to take their seniority from the date of their joining the duty in the Chief Office as already mentioned in their letters. Accordingly, all the five respondents joined their duty in the Chief Office after submitting, with reference to the memorandum dated 1/06/1970, separate letters (at pages 40-44 of the paper book) addressed to the Inspector General of Police, staling that,
"I submit that I am willing to take the last rank in seniority in the category of LDCs in Chief Office from the date reporting duty in Chief Office. "their respective dates of joining the Chief Office are detailed in the Memorandum dated 7/09/1970, Annx. 'h' (page 47 of the paper book). They were placed on probation with the condition that if they failed to complete their probation satisfactorily they would be sent back to their original district/unit offices.

(3.)The respondents satisfactorily completed their probation and were substantively confirmed in the Chief Office and their seniority was counted with effect from the dates they joined the Chief Office. In 1983 they filed an application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal claiming that they were entitled to count their service rendered in the district police offices/units for the purpose of their seniority in the Chief Office, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.