IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAfPI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT _ T>l€"HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI / WRIT PETITION NO: 3283 OF 2005 Between: 1. Neelapu Kanaka Rao, Stores Assistant Grade-I OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 2. Mahabooh Hakkani S/o M, Subhani, Stores Assistant Grade-ll OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 3. Behara Venkatesh S/o Late Satyanarayana, Stores Assistant Grade-ll OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 4. Nanbavari Krishna Mohan S/o Ramam, Stores Assistant Grade-I OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 5. Goijana Ramakrishna S/o Late Appalaswamy, Store Keeper OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 6. Prasada Rao Bhaskara Rao S/o Late Stayam, Store Kallasi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 7. Yellapu Tulasaiah S/o late China Appalanaidu, Stores Assistant Grade-I • OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 8. Pukkella Lai Mohan Rao S/o Late Janardha Rao, Stores Assistant Grade-I OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 9. Peethala Appa Rao S/o Late Ramu Naidu, Stores Assistant Grade-ll OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Vemala Demudu S/o Late Vemala Veeranna, Store Kallasi OHC. .. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Dhanyamraju Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Late D. Seetarama Rao Stores Assistant Grade-ll OHC, Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 10. 11. Vummidi Rambabu S/o Late V. Kodanda Rao, Stores Assistant Grade-ll OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Doddi Demudu S/o Late Thathalu, Store Kallasi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Paravada Appa Rao S/o P. Appanna, Stores Assistant Grade-ll OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Kala Rama Rao S/o K;Venugopal Rao, Store Kallasi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Patnia Appala Raju S/o Late P. Chinnath, Store Kaallassi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Pothattula Venkata Ramesh S/o Late P. Satyam, Store Mate, OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Rongali Jogu Naidu S/o Late China Appala Naidu, Store Kaallassi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Dadi Rama Rao S/o Late Narasimham, Store Khallasi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Peela Rama Chandra Rao S/o Late Babu, Store Khallasi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Kosetty Appa Rao S/o Late K. Pydia Naidu, Stores Assistant Grade-1 OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam Kosetty Appa Rao S/o Late K. Pydia Naidu, Stores Assistant Visakhapatnam Port Trust / 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. R/o Grade-1 OHC. Stores Section Visakhapatnam Lanka Venkata Ramana Patrudu S/o Late Samba Murthy, Stores Assistant Grade-1 OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o r Visakhapatnam Mutchakarla Mutyala Naidu S/o Late Appanna, Store Kallasi OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 23. 24. ■' w Ampalam Simhagiri Patnaik S/o Late Satyanarayana, Stores Assistant Grade-ll OHC. Stores Section, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, R/o Visakhapatnam 25. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Chairman the Visakhapatnam port Trust Visakhapatnam 2. Chief Mechanical Engineer, The Visakhapatnam Port, Trust Visakhapatnam 3. Chief Material Manager The Visakhapatnam, Port Trust Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction, particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein not extending the incentive scheme to us the employees in stores working Handling Complex in Visakhapatnam Port Trust and illegal, arbitrary in ore and discriminatory conferring Art, 14 of the Constitution of India and further ••V. . *• . directing the respondents to extend the incentive scheme to the petitioners herein also on par with other employees of Ore Handing Complex and pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and pass such otherorder or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the Circumstance of the case. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 4436 OF 2005) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents herein to extend the incentive scheme to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K SAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A KRISHNAM RAJU The Court made the following order: a 1 jr APHC010333552005 -f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 3283/2005 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Neelapu Kanaka Rao And 24 Others and Others AND The Visakhapatnam Port Trust And 2 Others and Others ,..RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.KSAIRAM MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.RAVITEJA PADIRl 2.AKRISHNAM RAJU The Court made the following: ORDER: The grievance of the petitioners in short is that the respondents are not extending incentive scheme to them who were working in Ore Handling Complex, Viskhapatnam Port Trust. Heard Sri S.Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned counsel representing Sri Ravi Teja, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the respondent Port had formulated an incentive scheme for the staff working in ore handling complex to achieve the targets in productivity in mechanical Ore Handling Complex and to reduce delays in both receiving and shipping operations. The petitioners are also the employees of the Port Trust working in stores in ore handling complex, who are doing their best in supplying material to various departments including the category people mentioned in the scheme. Petitioners work also needs for productivity. If they do not supply the material, the mentioned category persons cannot achieve their targets in productivity. As the benefit of the said scheme was not extended to the petitioners, they made representations to the respondent- corporation to consider their case on par with the category of persons mentioned under the scheme and requested to pay incentives. Non consideration of the said representations, the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that denying the scheme to the petitioners is nothing but discrimination and violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the writ petition is filed in the year 2005. Now out of 25 petitioners, 20 petitioners got retired. In view of the facts prayed to pass appropriate orders. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on counter contended that the incentive scheme was introduced in the year 1986 with the approval of Government by fixing the norms and datum and for the purpose of the said incentive, the Ore Handling Complex employees were classified into two 4. 3 categories i.e., category I and category II. The category I and category II employees have been indicated at annexure I and II to the scheme and the payment of incentive is being paid strictly to those category employees as per the incentive scheme and the posts covered under category and II. Other than these persons, no employees have been paid incentive so far. The employees who are directly involved in the productivity of OHC are categorized in Category I and II. He further submitted that the petitioners herein work in the premises of OHC belonging to different department as sub section and their duties and responsibilities are different from these category employees. As such, the petitioners do not fall in such category and they are not eligible to the said incentive scheme. Until and then they are shown in the scheme, the question of showing discrimination does not arise. Learned counsel further contended that when the petitioners do not fall under the scheme, they cannot ask to consider their case and thereby provide incentives. The writ petition is devoid of merits, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for respective parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the employees of the respondent Port Trust and are not technical employees. A perusal of the scheme goes to show that the very objective to bring such scheme into existence is to achieve the targets of productivity in Mechanical Iron Ore Handling Operations and the employees covered under the scheme were 4 categorizod into two parts category and category II who were particularly shown in Annexure I and II. It is not the case of the petitioners that they fall in any such categories. As the petitioners does not fall under the categories mentioned in the incentive scheme, the benefit of the said scheme cannot be extended to the petitioners just because they work in the supply department of the respondent port. It is clear that the scheme was introduced specifically for the persons who are directly involved in the productivity of OHC. In the said circumstances, the allegation that the respondent port trust is showing discrimination on the petitioners does not arise. The writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as 7. to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to SRI. K SAIRAM MURTHY Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. A KRISHNAM RAJU Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies. psk HIGH COURT DATED:24/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.3283 of 2005 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH NO COSTS