Allowed

Thupakula Sudhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2023WP/25479/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's appointment under the displaced persons quota. The Court quashed the impugned order denying employment as the list was already approved by the Government, and a retired pensioner does not disqualify the family for such employment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Memo dated 07.10.2020 is set aside, and respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case for employment under the displaced persons quota forthwith.

Thupakula Sudhakar, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No. 25479 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶4

Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.

¶5

In a nut shell, the case of the petitioner is that he and his family members were residing at K.Basavapuram village, B.Mattam Mandal, Kadapa District. The Government had acquired their house and agricultural lands in the year 1984-1985 for the purpose of construction of Telugu Ganga Project and awards were passed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 06.11.1984. With a view to provide employment to the displaced persons or their dependents under the major and medium irrigation projects, the Government had promulgated G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986, and issued orders. As per the scheme envisaged in the said G.O., the brother of the petitioner, namely, Thupakula Venkata Subbaiah, applied for consideration of his case for appointment against the vacancies reserved for the displaced persons. After due enquiry, the District Selection Committee prepared an integrated seniority list of 210

¶6

¶7

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶8

eligible displaced persons for employment under the Telugu Ganga Project. The Government vide memo dated 31.10.2009 approved the said list in which the brother of the petitioner was figured at Sl.No.30. While so, the 3^rd respondent published the list of 41 candidates including the name of the petitioner’s brother at Sl.No.30 on 10.01.2010 stating that the candidate is working as an Attender in Guru Raghavendra Project, Emmiganuru.

¶9

i) Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application in the place of his brother for consideration of his case for appointment. After following due procedure enumerated in the relevant Government Orders, the 1^st respondent vide Memo dated 28.11.2019 included the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.10 in the list of displaced persons. Later, upon a complaint given by some third parties against the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer, Kadapa, ordered the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, for reenquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, submitted a report to the 4^th respondent on 31.07.2020 stating that the petitioner is eligible for appointment under displaced persons quota. However, the 3^rd respondent vide Memo dated 07.10.2020 rejected the application of the petitioner in compliance of the orders of the

¶10

¶11

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶12

District Collector and the District Selection Committee, without assigning any valid reasons. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶13

A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the case of the petitioner’s brother was not considered for appointment and his case was rejected based on the verification report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, as the petitioner’s brother was working as an Attender in Sri Guru Raghavendra Project. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner filed an affidavit requesting to include the name of the petitioner in the list. After due enquiry, the name of the petitioner was approved by the District Selection Committee on 08.08.2019 and the Government also accorded permission to include the name of the petitioner in the existing seniority list vide Memo dated 28.11.2019.

¶14

i) In the meanwhile, basing on an oral complaint made by some third-parties that there are Government employees in the family of the petitioner, an re-enquiry was ordered and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa furnished a report dated

¶15

¶16

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶17

31.07.2020 stating that the petitioner’s father was working as Office Subordinate in the office of the Superintending Engineer, NTR TGP Circle, Kadapa. Pursuant thereto, an Office Note was circulated to the District Selection Committee for approval of ineligibility of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of displaced persons and the same was approved.

¶18

A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the averments made in the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that without considering the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.07.2020 and without there being any competence, the 3^rd respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 07.10.2020 holding the petitioner ineligible for employment under the displaced persons quota. It is also stated that the petitioner’s father was working as Mazdoor on part time basis on a consolidated pay for some time and later, his services were regularised on 05.11.1999 and he retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2018 and now he is drawing pension.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner that after approval of the original list of candidates by the Government, the other

¶20

¶21

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶22

respondents are incompetent to delete the name of the persons from

¶23

the said approved list of the Government unilaterally and by making so called re-enquiry without being ordered by the Government. Further, neither a notice was issued nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned proceedings. It is also the contention of the petitioner that merely because his father is receiving pension, the respondents cannot deny the employment to be provided under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 for which the petitioner is entitled in all respects. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of this Court in Dasari Lakshminarayana Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.4390 of 2010 and batch dated 29.02.2012) and in Rachagolla Vijaya Pratap Gandhi Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.507 of 2010 dated 22.06.2011).

¶24

Per contra , learned Government Pleader for Services-III has

¶25

reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶26

¶27

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶28

As can be seen from the respective pleadings of the parties,

¶29

it is obvious that the petitioner is a displaced person as the possession of the land and house of his family was acquired by the respondent authorities. Admittedly, thereafter the petitioner submitted his application for appointment under the quota earmarked for displaced persons and the 1^st respondent after following the due procedure therefor included the name of the petitioner in the list of displaced persons for providing employment vide Memo dated 28.11.2019. However, the 3^rd respondent rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment vide Memo dated 07.10.2020, in compliance of the orders of the District Collector, without assigning any valid reasons. The petitioner was thus denied employment though his case had been considered and approved by the 1^st respondent.

¶30

In the report dated 31.07.2020 submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, to the 3^rd respondent, it is categorically stated that the father of the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation; that the brother of the petitioner is working on daily wage basis in the office of the S.E., Telugu Ganga Project, Mamillapalli, C.K.Dinne Mandal, as

¶31

¶32

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶33

Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) but not working as Panchayat Secretary and not a permanent employee, that the mother of the petitioner is a housewife; that the complainants, who levelled allegations against the petitioner, have withdrawn their complaints on 06.12.2019; that nobody in the petitioner’s family has objected regarding the claim of employment by the petitioner under the displaced persons quota; and that the petitioner is eligible for getting employment.

¶34

Further, the respondents did not choose to file any rejoinder denying the averments made by the petitioner in his reply affidavit.

¶35

In view of the above, two aspects that fall for adjudication in this writ petition are, whether the 3^rd respondent is competent to make an enquiry after the Government approved the list of eligible candidates and when the Government did not order any re-enquiry into the matter, and whether a retired Government employee drawing pension can be treated as an earning member of the family. Both the aspects were dealt with by this Court in the judgments on which the petitioner relied.

¶36

¶37

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶38

i) In Dasari Lakshminarayana case (1 supra) , in paras 4 and 9

¶39

of his judgment the learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:

¶40

“4. In the counter it is not disclosed as to who ordered re-enquiry. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, which approved the list on 31.10.2009, did not order any re-enquiry and did not call for any report. It is not disclosed as to what was the authority for the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet and Special Deputy Collector, TGP, Unit-I, Kadapa, to make such enquiry after the Government approved the list of eligible candidates and when the Government did not order any re-enquiry into the matter. Even after the so called re-enquiry and preparation of list of ineligible candidates, no effort was made to send the list of ineligible candidates to the Government and for deletion of names of the ineligible candidates from the list of original eligible candidates approved by the government. In the absence of any authorization, it is evident that the district machinery at Kadapa has acted in a manner over and above the State Government in publishing list of ineligible candidates contrary to the list of eligible candidates approved by the State Government. In that view of the matter, grievances of the petitioners in these writ petitions are real.

¶41

9. On individual scrutiny of the grounds urged by the respondents for treating the petitioners as ineligible candidates, I have no hesitation in my mind that all the grounds put forward by the respondents for deleting the names of the petitioners from the list of eligible candidates for appointment as displaced persons, are untenable. Further, this Court is of the opinion that after approval of the original list of eligible candidates by the Government, the other respondents are incompetent to delete names of the persons from the said list unilaterally and by making so called re-enquiry

¶42

¶43

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶44

without being ordered by the Government. The act of deleting the names of the petitioners from the list of eligible candidates by respondents 3 to 5 is ultra vires and illegal.”

¶45

ii) In Rachagolla Vijaya Pratap Gandhi case (2 supra) , the

¶46

learned Single Judge of this Court held thus:

¶47

“ It is therefore discernible from the above that pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. It is not an ex gratia payment but a payment for the past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in the lurch. The term „pension‟ has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus, the pension payable to an employee is earned by rendering long and sufficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered.

¶48

In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that a retired Government Head master drawing pension is an earning member of the family. Therefore, the ground cited by the third respondent on the basis of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, for denying employment to the petitioner under the quota earmarked for displaced employees is unsustainable in law.”

¶49

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

¶50

considered opinion that the judgments relied on by the petitioner

¶51

¶52

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶53

referred to supra are applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the petitioner is entitled for employment under the displaced persons quota.

¶54

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned

¶55

Memo dated 07.10.2020 issued by the 3^rd respondent is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for suitable employment under the quota earmarked for displaced persons in consonance with the list of displaced persons approved by the Government under Memo dated 28.11.2019 forthwith and pass appropriate orders thereon. No orders as to costs.

¶56

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

¶57

shall stand closed.

¶58

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶59

20^th January, 2023 cbs

¶60

¶61

NV,J W.P.No.25479 of 2020

¶62

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶63

Writ Petition No. 25479 of 2020

¶64

20^th January, 2023

¶65

cbs

Thupakula Sudhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thupakula Sudhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R v Nagamalleswara Rao Vs State of Ap

Sk. Rahamtulla Vs Anantharam

R Karmakar Vs the Andhra University

B. Sankara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vemuri Satya Sal Vara Prasad Vs Sri. Shashi Bhushan kumar

Katta Parameswar Reddy, Vs Sri S. S. Rawat