This appeal challenges the High Court order setting aside a termination notice. The Court held there were no grounds to overturn the lower court's finding that the termination was arbitrary and lacking reasons, given the earlier direction for regularization.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 42 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Director General NCC, New Delhi and others.
.. Appellants
Versus
C.Subramanyam S/o. Chengappa Aged 45 years, Occ: Working as Casual Labour, Office of the Commanding Officer, 2(A0 R & V Regt. NCC, Veterinary College Campus, Tirupathi. .. Respondent Counsel for the appellants : Mr. N.Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General
Counsel for respondent/writ petitioner : Mr. V.Sudhakar Reddy
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 13.09.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of
India, appearing for the appellants.
2
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working on temporary basis since 2006 and that the petitioner, along with others, approached the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.20053 of 2010 and the Court, by virtue of orders dated 05.11.2018 in the said writ petition, directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services by duly taking into account the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 , and Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But consequent to the said order, the impugned order dated 21.12.2018 got to be passed, terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2019 without specifying any reasons. Learned counsel for the respondents now puts forth before this Court that the termination order is passed only after considering all possibilities and situations existing at 2(A) R&V Regt. NCC. But absolutely, the termination order is bereft of any reasons.”
3
“Telephone : 0877 – 2249271 2(A) R&V Regt NCC Email: [email protected] Veterinary University Campus Tirupati-517 502(AP) No.2(A) R&V/113/CL/P&C 21 Dec 2018.
C.Subramanyam, S/o. Chengappa D.No.18-1-720-F, Sivalayam Street, Bhavani Nagar, TIRUPATI – 517 501 Chittoor Dist (AP) R.Dharmaiah S/o. R.Subramanyam D.No.4-4-1080, Bommegunta, TIRUPATI – 517 501 Chittoor Dist. (AP) Yella Ravi S/o. Yangaiah, Door No.3-8, Village and Post-Peruru Mandal-Chandragiri, Dist-Chittoor. V.Dinakar S/o. Muniratnam, Door No.1-6-743/F Prakasam Road, Indira Nagar, Tirupati.
TERMINATION ORDER
As per directions of Group Headquarters, Tirupati, after disposal of writ petition No.20053 of 2010 by Hon’ble High Court of Hyderabad, it is intimated that your services as Casual Labour is terminated with effect from 01 January 2019.
(KL Narayanan) Col Officer Commanding”
in the given facts and circumstances, termination order, as it is passed, is not sustainable in law. This Court had directed in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No. 20053 of 2010 to consider the case of the petitioners therein for regularization of their services. There is no indication whatsoever whether any such consideration, as directed by this Court, had taken place and on the contrary, order of termination of service is passed. It is in that circumstance, learned single Judge had set aside the termination order dated 21.12.2018 and directed
4
reinstatement of the respondent/writ petitioner, while reserving liberty to the appellants to take action against him in accordance with law.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
GM
5
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 42 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 13.09.2021
GM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the termination order of the respondent, passed without specifying reasons after the High Court directed regularization consideration, is sustainable in law when the learned single Judge has a
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nihal Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶2
(2013) 14 SCC 65 · Who else cites this
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. UmadeviReferred¶2
(2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Director General NCC and others
C.Subramanyam
Arup Kumar Goswami
Ninala Jayasurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
