The High Court clarified that when an employer redresses an employee’s grievance regarding consideration for promotion—subsequent to interim judicial orders—the writ petition can be disposed of as infructuous, attaching the employer’s written instructions to the record. This determination upholds settled procedural law for writs but does not lay down new substantive precedent; it carries precedential value for handling similar cases where administrative decisions address issues after legal proceedings commence.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/28606/2016 of G CHINNA BABU, E G DIST. Vs EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. AND 3 OTHERS |
| CNR | APHC010496562016 |
| Date of Registration | 24-08-2016 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM) |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive for similar writs involving promotion grievances resolved during proceedings |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court recognized that when a petitioner’s grievance regarding promotion is redressed by the employer during the pendency of a writ petition—subsequent to interim orders—the writ petition may be disposed of, incorporating the employer’s written clarification as part of record. Having received such redressal, further adjudication is rendered unnecessary, and all pending applications are closed. No cost order is required. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged the employer’s refusal to consider him for promotion due to a pending criminal case. After interim orders from the court, the employer redressed the promotion grievance and provided written instructions, which were acknowledged by both parties. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh for procedural handling of writs rendered infructuous after redressal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar service law/administrative law writs |
| Follows | Established precedent that writs can be disposed of as infructuous when grievances are redressed during proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms court practice of disposing writs as infructuous where the entire grievance is redressed through employer action during the pendency of proceedings.
- Written instructions or records of redressal can be formally incorporated as part of judicial record.
- Lawyers should obtain and place on record any employer correspondence or action redressing the petitioner’s claims prior to final hearing to facilitate closure.
- The judgment reiterates judicial economy—courts need not adjudicate matters where the initial cause of action has ceased.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- At the time of hearing, both petitioner and respondent’s counsel represented that the grievance regarding promotion was resolved after the court’s interim order.
- Respondent supplied written instructions from the employer confirming redressal, which were acknowledged by both sides.
- In light of the resolution, the court deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition, with the employer’s instructions as part of the record.
- All pending interlocutory applications were also closed as part of final disposal.
- No order as to costs was passed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended employer’s refusal to consider promotion based on the pendency of a criminal case was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
- Sought directions for consideration for promotion without reference to the criminal case.
Respondent
- Presented written instructions from the employer showing the petitioner’s grievance was redressed after the interim court order.
- Requested that the writ petition be disposed of as infructuous in view of the redressal.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an electrical lineman employed by the Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., was denied consideration for promotion to the post of Line Inspector on grounds of a pending criminal case (FIR No.225/2015, Thondangi PS, East Godavari). He filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging this refusal. During the pendency of the petition and following interim court orders, the employer addressed the petitioner’s grievance and issued a memo undertaking consideration for promotion, which was acknowledged by both parties.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked for writ jurisdiction over administrative action.
- Section 151 CPC used for interim relief applications.
- No substantive statute was interpreted; the court’s focus was on procedural closure after redressal of grievance.
Procedural Innovations
- Formal incorporation of employer’s written instructions (confirming redressal) into the record as a means to dispose of the writ.
- Closure of pending applications without separate detailed orders once grievance is redressed and main relief is granted.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural approach for disposing writs after redressal is reaffirmed.