MOHD AHMED Vs. NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this appeal, the judgment and the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 13/12/1999 has been impugned raising a grievance that the High Court is in error in not issuing a direction for making the payment of difference of the arrears of salary in respect of the promotion post to which the appellant was entitled as also directed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The brief facts of the case for the purpose of considering the present controversy are that promotion to the post in supervisory B grade was due in the establishment of the respondent Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. The criterion for promotion as provided in Guideline 7 of the Guidelines governing conditions of the service of the employees of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. , for the post carrying scale of pay of Rs. 1500. 00-2000. 00 and below is seniority-cum-fitness. It appears that promotion exercise was undertaken and Respondent 2, namely, Lakshmipathi Raju was promoted, by order dated 25/6/1992. The abovesaid promotion was challenged by the present appellant Mohd. Ahmed and Smt Indumati Ganesh by filing Writ Petition No. 806 of 1992. Their case has been that the appellant Mohd. Ahmed was the seniormost employee in the zone of consideration for promotion to the supervisory B grade and Petitioner 2 in the writ petition, namely, Smt Indumati Ganesh was the next in seniority but both were denied promotion and superseded, promoting Shri Lakshmipathi Raju adopting the criterion of merit against the Guidelines. The contention of the writ petitioners was accepted and the writ petition was avowed by order dated 27/10/1995. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition gave the following directions:

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. went up in appeal before the Division Bench. The said appeal was disposed of, but while doing so, the present appellant was mentioned to have died. On coming to know about the said mistake the impugned order was passed mentioning therein that the present appellant had retired from service. But it is pointed out that rest of the judgment remained the same. The Division Bench, in passing the impugned order, totally ignored to take note of the claim of the appellant so much so, in the operative part of the order, no such observation has been made allowing or refusing any benefit to the appellant or upsetting the direction given by the Single Judge for payment of arrears of salary.