AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 1st respondent in not implementing the orders of the 3rd respondent, which were approved by the 2nd respondent, whereby petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant.
Heard Sri E.Venkata Rao, learned counsel representing Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and Ms.B.Sameera, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – III.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, though petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 29.07.2013, the said promotion was not implemented and he continued to work as Junior Assistant, notwithstanding the promotion granted by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner was retired from service in the year 2025 itself.
Per contra, respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit on 02.03.2023, wherein proceedings dated 04.12.2013 were annexed. The said proceedings state that the promotion granted to petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant was cancelled and he was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 29.07.2013, the date on which he claims to have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. The said action was taken on the ground of audit objections, as the petitioner was found to be a surplus employee and had been accommodated through the 1st respondent–District Employment Officer.
Admittedly, the proceedings dated 04.12.2013 were never challenged by petitioner at any point of time. Having been reverted to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 2013, petitioner cannot now raise any grievance against the said order after a considerable lapse of time.
In view of the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.