seniority of an employee in andhra pradesh governament judgements
given by andhra pradesh high court

---

Clarification of Question by dattupanth-ga on 14 Oct 2002 09:24 PDT

how much time it takes to answer my question?

To answer your clarification request, the time taken to answer your
question will depend on when a researcher chooses to start working on
the query and how long it will take him or her to find an answer.
Researchers have a totally free hand in selecting questions to answer,
and do so according to their knowledge and interests. People
registered with the service and who are not researchers are free to
add information in the comments section, and could perhaps also supply
the information you seek.

I have only been able to find this reference.
An article on Labour Law by Praful R. Desai in The Tribune for 6 June
1999 in which Desai quotes the Supreme Court judgement overturning a
previous decision by the High Court, on appeal.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99jun06/biz.htm

"In AP Electricity Board v R. Parthasarthi (1999-I-LLJ. 837-) SC said
thus:
It appears to the SC that it has not been indicated in the service
regulation that such experience of ten years must be in the service of
the State Electricity Board of AP. In the opinion of the SC if an
employee of the AP Electricity Board has obtained total experience of
10 years serving partly in the State Government and partly in the
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board, such employees fulfils the criterion
of eligibility for being considered for promotion to the said post of
Asst. Executive Engineer.

It may be indicated that there is no dispute to the fact that when an
employee is permanently absorbed in the service of AP State
Electricity Board, his seniority will be fixed below Junior Asst.
Engineers already working in the Electricity Board . Such
inter-seniority will be a relevant factor when a number of employees
come in the zone of consideration on the basis of ten years experience
for being considered for promotion to the post of Asst. Executive
Engineer.

The HC in view of the SC has misread the Regulation 14 by taking into
consideration clause (h) of the conditions of absorption in the
service of the State Electricity Board. Such clause (h) has nothing to
do with the question of promotion under Regulation 14 of the Service
Regulation Act.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the SC held that the impugned order of
the Division Bench of the HC cannot be sustained and the same was set
aside.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to cost."