Partly allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr.G.J.Sujnana Raju

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2024WA/770/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two-judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted a Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition by a 58-year-old contract lecturer. The Court held that while no automatic right to continue service exists beyond 60 years, it granted liberty for authorities to re-engage fit contract employees beyond this limit under specific Government Orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal partly allowed; liberty granted to re-engage the respondent and similarly situated employees beyond 60 years if physically and mentally fit, subject to specified Government Orders.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Dr.G.J.Sujnana… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶5

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 770 OF 2022

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dt. 12-07-2022 in WP No. 9130 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶11

The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada,

¶12

The Additional Joint Collector/DRO/Chairman, District^{SelectionCommittee} for the Renewal of Contract Faculty, Government Degree Colleges, Srikakulam District.

¶13

The Regional Joint director. Collegiate Education, Rajamahendravaram, E G District.

¶14

The Principal, SCIM, Government Degree College,' Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶15

...APPELLANT(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

Dr.G.J.Sujnana Raju, S/o Surya Rao, Aged about 58 years,^Occ.Contract Lecturer (Economics), SCIM, Government Degree College, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in WP.No. 9130 of 2021,^dt. 22-072022

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the present Writ Appeal.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order granted earlier in W.A.No.770 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022.

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. GP FOR SERVICES III (AP)

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

7 '

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶31

AND

¶32

THE HON*BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶33

W.A. No. 770 of 2022

¶34

JUDGMENT: - (per Hon’bie Sri Justice G.Narendar)

¶35

Heard the learned Government Pleader for S.III for the Appellants and the learned Counsel for the private Respondent.

¶36

The issue involved in the instant appeal has already been considered by this Bench, while hearing and disposing of W.P. No.21294 of 2023, whereby this Bench after hearing the parties in detail was pleased to reject the Writ Petition and was also pleased to permit the continuation or re engagement of the employee on similar contractual terms if the employee was found fit enough to continue to discharge duties.

¶37

The Writ Petition came to be disposed of as under:

¶38

“5) The persons like the Petitioner, who have been engaged on contractual basis, in the considered opinion of this Court do not constitute “a person who is appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State”. The use of the word “appointed” is not

<br>

without significance. It implies and appointment madeⁱⁿ accordance and in compliance the laws/rules. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition, in our considered opinion is misconceived.

¶43

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would attempt^to place reliance on certain interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. On a perusal of the same, it^isseen that no opinion upholding the right of the Petitioner therein, has been articulated by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground to place reliance on the same or treat the Petitioner on parity with the Petitioners therein.

¶44

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶45

The dismissal of the Writ Petition will not come^inthe way of the Respondents if they so desire to re-engage^the services of the Petitioner on terms as noted supra. ”

¶46

Today the learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court a copy of the G.O. Rt. No. 19, dated 29.01.2024, whereby in paragraph No. 3, the Special Secretary to Government (1/C) has taken note of the^interim order and accordingly issued G.O. permitting the concerned authorities to reengage the services of the academicians^who have completed the age of “58 years” provided they^arefound to be physically and mentally fit to continue the duties expected of the post they were holding.

's.

7 •

The measure implemented by the Special Secretary to Government (I/C) is a prudent, as it will obliterate^redundant and non-productive litigation.

¶51

It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that by G.O. No. 15, dated 31.01.2022, the age of retirement came to be increased from “60” to “62 years”.

¶52

\ \

¶53

In that view, we are of the opinion that the Writ Appeal could be partly allowed, but while so allowing, liberty may also be given to the Appellants and the authorities to reengage the services of contractual employees if they are found to be physically and mentally fit to discharge^theduties assigned to the post held by them, in similar terms, as stipulated under G.O. Rt. No. 19, dated 29.01.2024.

¶54

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and liberty is reserved to the Appellants to re-engage the Respondent, if they so desire, and also other similarly situated employees even beyond the age of “60 years” subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O. No. 15, dated 31.01.2022. There shall be

¶55

no order as to costs.

¶56

¶57

This order shall not be construed as creating a rightⁱⁿ any contractual employee to demand a direction in the nature of a mandamus to continue them in service upto or beyond the age of “62 years”.

¶58

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶59

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

Sd/- P. VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶62

To,

¶63

Dr.G.J.Sujnana Raju, S/o Surya Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Contract Lecturer (Economics), SCIM, Government Degree College, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

¶64

One CC to SRI. GP FOR SERVICES III (AP) Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

One CC to SRI. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three C.D.Copies

/
t
S'
.V

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/02/2024

ORDER

WA.No.770 of 2022

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr.G.J.Sujnana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr.G.J.Sujnana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Satyanarayana Vs Union of India

The Deputy General Manager Andhra Bank Head Office Vs P Nageswara Rao

Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Vs S.Janardhan Naidu

Madhurantakam Vijay Bhaskar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ap Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Vs M Viswanatha Reddy

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ap Ltd. Vs S Suryanarayana