Y. RAMANJANEYULU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 29-03-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

569 
Y. RAMANJANEYULU 
v. 
STATE OF ANj)HRA PRADESH & ORS. 
MtJrch 29, 1985 
[[l.A~ DESAI ~ND R.B. MISRA. JJ.l 
Civil Servfce~Princip/e of _Reservation of appoirittntnts extended to all 
departments by an Order- No appropriate and timely action taken on ·ii 'by ·the 
Department-;-Un'exp/ained long delay on the part of the appellant in moving for 
effective remedy-Effect of, 
G.0.Ms.No. 559 · dated May 4, 1961 issued by the respondent-State 
provides that the principle of reservation of appointments should be extended 
to all cadres of posts includin,1 posts involving promotion:>· in all de.part 
ments including the Departments of Secretariat to which it did not apply till 
then., 
. 
• -
The appelJant filed a Represen1ation Petition before the Tribunal as 
Jate as 1977 contending that if appropriate action would have been taken at 1 
the time it was due as per G.Q.Ms.No. 559, he would have been eligible for' 1 
promotion as Deputy Registrar or Cooperative Societies in 1965 and by 
denying him the said promotion in violation of the aforesad Govt. order ; his 
future promotion .to the post of Joint Registrar has been adversely affected. 
The Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that the special rules for the Co~ 
operative service did not contain any specific provision for the application 
of rule of reservation and, therefore. the appellant was not entitled to claim 
the benefit of the rule or reservation for promotion to the rank of Deputy 
Registrar betwee:t 1965 and 1972 as· claimed by him: Hence this appeal by 
special leave. 
Condoning the delay in filing the special leave petition and disposing 
of the appeal, the ·Court 
HELD : (1) On a p_roper interpretation of the r-:levant Government 
Order; the_ai)pellant Was entitled to Promotion ~s Deputy Registrar in the year 
1965 Which was postponed upto October 14, 1983 when he was promoted as 
Deputy Registrar. Though the appellant made number of representations but · 
he moved for an effective r~liefas late as 1977. Moreover. Ibis is not the Jone 
ca~e apd if the <;ourt ~rants hjrn the rcli~f ~s claimed by him, 'J:ioµ~h he;_ hijs. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
El 
F;. 
B 
c 
n: 
570 
SUPREME COURT RBPORTS 
(1985] 3 s.c.R. 
sought relief afler a very long unexplained delay, it would create chaos in the 
service and many promotions and reversio.ns will have to be effected. The 
Court is, therefore not inclined to disturb the existing promotions and post-
ings by holding that the appellant was c.ntitled .to promotion way back in 
1965. In this backgaround, he is entitled to sorite monetary compensation. 
[572G-H; 573AJ 
(2) If the appellant is given the benefit of deemed promotion from 1965 
the State cannot deny identical benefit to p:rsons similarly situated and simi-
larly circumstanced. And they never questioned the alleged impropriety of 
not giving them lhe ben~fit of. the Gove.rnment Order in respect of reservations 
in promotion posti;. All these are relevant Considerations and therefore the 
amount of backwages is fiir.ed at RS. 4a,ooo payable in one lump sum. While 
computing the amount, the Court hJ.s kept in view the period during which 
the appellant would be entitled to relief. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 40,000 
awarded .as compensation in the form of backwages is to be spread over for the 
period 1965 to 1982. Since the amount i! payable in one lump sulfi, presum-
ably the Government may resort to s. 192 of the Income Tax Act, -but let it 
be made distinctly clear that the appellant is entitled tOlthe benefit of sec. 89 
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 21 A of the Income Tax Rules and is 
entitled to relief of spread over. The pay of the appellant sha,11 also be fixed 
at Rs. 1600 i.e. the maximum of ~he scale of Deputy Registrar effective from 
January!, 1984. (573E-H; 574B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 1935 
From the Judgment and. Order dated 24.3.83 of the Adminis-
Et 
trative Tribunal at Hyderabad in Representation Petition No. 1172 
of 1977. 
F. 
A. Subba Rao for the Appellant. 
P. Ram Reddy, R.V.S.N. Chari and S11rfe.1/z Menon ·for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DESAI, J. Special leave granted. 
G,, 
Delay in filing the special leave petition fondoned. 
We heard Mr. A Stlbba Rao, learned connse\ for the appellant 
and Mr: Ram Reddy, learned senforicoun;e1 for the State of Andhra 
Pradesh. 
H 
The appellant claims that If appropriate action would have. 
bee·n taken at the time it was due, as per

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.