APHC010692012011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10770/2011 Between: 1. N. RAMESH BABU, NELLORE, S/O. N.LAKSHMAIAH, EMPLOYEE H.NO. 26-1-483, B.V.NAGAR, NELLORE-524 004. ...PETITIONER AND 1. S P S R NELLORE DIST COOP CENTRAL BANK LTD 3 OTHRS, CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, NELLORE, REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. V RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. RAMANA REDDY, ASSISTANT MANAGER, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, TRUNK ROAD, NELLORE - 524 001. 3. Y S R K PRASAD, S/O. PANDU RANGA REDDY, INCHARGE- MANAGER, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, JALAGAM VENGALLRAONAGAR, 4. M KANTHA RAO, S/O. LAKSHMI NARASIMAHAM, ASSISTANT MANAGER, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, TRUNK RAOD, NELLORE-524 001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS i. declaring the action of the 1st respondent - bank in not fixing the pay scale of the petitioner in category-V post w.e.f., 09.01.1984 2 with all consequential benefits, and ii. in not placing the Petitioner at Sl.No.46 of Category - V post in the Tentative Seniority List dated 25.01.2007, and iii) in rejecting the Representations of the Petitioner in Memo No. VCAT/Estt./2010- 11 dated 29-07-2010 ignoring the earlier Proceedings for proper fixation of the Pay scale and the seniority list in Category-V Post, and iv) issuing Proceedings No. IVCAT/Estt./2010-11 dated 29-07-2010 by which the Respondents 2 to 4 herein who are juniors to the Petitioner are promoted to the Category-IV posts; be declared as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to the earlier Resolutions and decisions taken by the 1st Respondent Bank as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also opposed to Rule 73 of the A.P.C.S. Rules, and consequently v) direct the 1st Respondent Bank to fix the pay scale of the Petitioner in Category-V Post w.e.f., 09-01-1984 with all attendant benefits, and vi) fix the seniority of the Petitioner at SI.No. 46 of the V Category Post in the 1st Respondent Bank, and vii) to directh the 1st Respondent Bank to promote the Petitioner to Category -IV Post w.e.f., 29-07-2010 with all attendant benefits and seniority and to show the Petitioner as senior to the Respondents 2 to 4 herein in CategoryIV Post; and viii) to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 13244 OF 2011 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 to fix an early date of hearing of the above WP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. . The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the tentative seniority list and seeks to be placed senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Accordingly, a direction is sought from this Court for re-fixing his pay from the date of initial appointment i.e., 09.01.1984 with all consequential benefits and also to place the petitioner at Sl.No. 46 in Category-V post in the tentative seniority list dated 25.01.2007. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have attained the age of superannuation and that the petitioner’s services were regularized on 13.02.2002. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for re-fixing his pay from the date of initial appointment is concerned, the same was rejected. The petitioner was working on daily wage basis under compassionate appointment. However, his services were regularized on 13.02.2002. The services of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were regularized much prior to the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner was placed below respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the tentative seniority list. 3. Considering the submissions that the petitioner and the unofficial respondents have attained the age of superannuation, this Court cannot adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner at this stage. 4. On these considerations, this writ petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 21.01.2026 PNS