Dismissed

The State of Andhra pradesh v. R.Kannababu

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2021WA/300/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the State challenged an order upholding an Administrative Tribunal direction granting salary increments and arrears to Nagar Mandal Representatives (NMRs). The Court rejected the State's arguments regarding delay in filing the writ and the prohibition on collateral attacks, dismissing the appeal and upholding the implementation direction.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

The State of Andhra pradesh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No. 300 of 2021

¶6

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶7

The State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and others. .. Appellants

¶8

Versus R.Kannababu S/o. Kannayya, Aged 53 years, Occ: Pump Mechanic, RWS&S, Sub-Division, Yalamanchili, Yalamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, Government Pleader Counsel for respondents/petitioners : Mr. T.V.V.Koteswara Rao

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶10

Dt: 17.09.2021

¶11

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶12

Heard Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for the appellants/State.

¶13

Also heard Mr. T.V.V. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing

¶14

for the respondents/writ petitioners.

¶15

The writ petitioners, along with some others, had approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application, being O.A.No.9089 of 2012, which was disposed of by an order dated 21.11.2012. Relevant portion of the order, reads as follows:

¶16

“ 2. According to the applicants, they were initially

¶17

appointed during the year 1989 onwards as NMRs. Since

¶18

¶19

the date of their initially appointment, they are continuously working as NMRs and the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1523 PR & RD dated 26.10.2009 and G.O.Rt.No.1542 PR & RD dated 29.10.2009 granting minimum time scale and D.A. to the applicants and they were paid minimum time scale attached to the posts as per the above G.O. According to the applicants, they are working without H.R.A. and increments.

¶20

Further, according to the applicants they were also extended the benefit of PRC 2010 and also the periodical increments from the date of payment of minimum time scale, but the same were not released from the date of payment of minimum time scale. Similar question arose before this Tribunal in O.A.No.7195 of 2002 and the same was disposed of on 26.08.2002 and subsequently, the same was also followed by this Tribunal in several OAs and the respondents also took the matter to the Hon’ble High Court by way of W.P.No.759, 760 and 979 of 2012 and the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court vide orders dated 07.06.2012, confirmed the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.8129/2011 and batch wherein the orders were passed basing on the orders passed in O.A.7195/2002. Further according to the applicants, the matter was also carried to the Apex Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.6422 of 2007 and the Apex Court of India also confirmed the orders of this Tribunal.

¶21

Further, according to the applicants, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.405, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (D1) Department,

¶22

¶23

dated 30.03.2012, in respect of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, implementing the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.No.7335/2010, which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court and also the Apex Court of India in SLP No.29963/2011.

¶24

In view of the above circumstances, the applicants in the present O.A. are also entitled for release of increments, HRA and CCA and also revised pay scales along with arrears of pay. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed directing the respondents to release increments, HRA, CCA and revised pay scales to the applicants, and also to release the arrears, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶25

This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.09.2019, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13803 of 2019 directing implementation of the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal.

¶26

Submission of Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda is that the learned single Judge was required to consider whether the writ petitioners were entitled for release of increments, HRA etc., or whether they were similarly situated with others and the learned single Judge having not done this exercise, the impugned order is vitiated. It is further submitted that because of delay in approaching the writ court, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

¶27

We find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶28

The order of the learned Tribunal was not appealed by the appellants/State and its functionaries, who were parties to the Original

¶29

¶30

Application, but at the same time, the order was not implemented by the appellants. While it is correct that alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the aforesaid order, no contempt application was filed, the writ petitioners sought implementation of the aforesaid order by filing the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises.

¶31

In a country governed by rule of law, it is expected that the orders of the Tribunals or Courts are diligently complied with by the State and State is not expected to take a hyper-technical view that approach to writ court is delayed.

¶32

The sub-stratum of the argument of Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda is an attempt to collaterally challenge the order of the learned Tribunal without assailing the same at the first instance, which is not permissible in law.

¶33

Considering the above, we find no merit in the writ appeal and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶35

¶36

¶37

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

¶39

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶40

WRIT APPEAL No. 300 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶41

Dt: 17.09.2021

¶42

The State of Andhra pradesh v. R.Kannababu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra pradesh v. R.Kannababu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Cadd Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs Sri P. Basanth Kumar

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri G.Krishna Rao

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G. Dwarakanth

Vema Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Vmrda) Vs M/s. Fusion Foods

K.Subrahmanyam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh