Retired Railway Engineer Wins Promotion Battle

 Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside a 2010 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench, and directed railway authorities to promote petitioner Amit Goel to the senior administrative grade (SAG) with effect from February 2006.

The direction came in a writ plea filed by Goel, a retired chief general engineer of South Central Railway, challenging his exclusion from promotion alongside his batchmates despite upgraded annual confidential reports (ACRs). The panel comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Pulla Karthik was hearing a writ petition filed by Goel, who was part of the 1985 batch of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE). The petitioner contended that he was wrongly excluded from the promotion granted to his batchmates in February 2006 based on initially adverse ACRs, which were later upgraded from “very good” to “outstanding” by the reviewing authority. Though he was eventually promoted in December 2006, the delay cost him seniority and consequential benefits. The panel noted that the review departmental promotion committee ought to have considered the upgraded ACRs and promoted him along with others in February 2006. The tribunal had earlier dismissed his application in 2010 on the ground that he had accepted the delayed promotion without protest. The panel disagreed with this reasoning and held that accepting a delayed promotion did not take away the right to be fairly considered on corrected records. The panel also took note of a review petition filed in July 2023, in which the presiding judge remarked that the case was akin to “Haathi nikal gaya, dum atak gaya,” referring to the prolonged litigation. Allowing the writ plea, the panel directed the Railway Board to grant retrospective promotion from February 2006 with all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears, pensionary benefits, and closed all pending miscellaneous applications.

Contempt case junked, petitioner fined

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed with costs a contempt case against IAS officers Rajeev Trivedi and K. Ramakrishna Rao and IPS officers Mahesh Bhagawath and Ravirala. The judge was dealing with a contempt case arising out of a writ plea filed by Shaik Janimiya. The court, in its earlier order, had directed the government to consider payment of salary to the petitioner, which was due to him, by taking into consideration the service certificate of August 2017 within four weeks. The additional advocate-general invited the attention of the judge to the proceedings issued by the superintendent of police and contended that pursuant to orders of the single judge, the concerned authority had taken a decision and communicated the same to the contempt petitioner. Hence, there cannot be any contempt, as canvassed by counsel for the petitioner. According to the official, though the proceedings were issued in August 2018 and were received by the writ petitioner, he held back information and was thus guilty of approaching the court with unclean hands. The judge recorded the finding that the authorities produced the document at the earliest point in time and that the petitioner had affixed their signature on the document. On further questioning, the petitioner contended it was an inadvertent mistake to have filed the contempt case. “This court is inclined to hold that the contempt petitioner, by withholding the vital document and filing the contempt case, tried to gain advantage on the strength of the pleadings made in the contempt affidavit. The contempt petitioner successfully consumed the court’s valuable time by playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the firm view that the very filing of the contempt case amounts to gross abuse of process of law,” Justice Anil Kumar said. Accordingly, the judge imposed the cost of Rs 5,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.

HC orders SBI to release fraud victims’ funds

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed two State Bank of India (SBI) branches to release funds to a cyber crime victim in a writ plea filed for non-compliance with a trial court order. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Arsenapalli Venkateshwar Rao and two others, who contended that they were victims of cyber fraud and that amounts were illegally debited from their accounts and transferred to unknown persons. The petitioners contended that the trial court, after tracing the funds to the accounts of the accused, directed the bank branches concerned at Anjur Phata, Bhiwandi (Thane) and Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth (Akola) to transfer the amounts back to the petitioners’ account. Despite this, the banks failed to act on the direction. The petitioners pointed out that the Warangal cyber crime police station also issued email communications in January and February instructing the banks to comply, but no action was taken. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court. The petitioners contended that the continued inaction by the banks was illegal, arbitrary and violative of their fundamental rights. After hearing both sides, the court directed the respective SBI branches to act per the order passed by the trial court and release the funds to the petitioners.