Dismissed

The District Educational Officer v. v.Srinivasulu

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Jul 2024WP/11929/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition against the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order treating a period of delay due to lack of vacancy as compulsory wait. The court held the employee could not be compelled to join a deputation post after repatriation absent statutory rules or consent, finding no illegality in the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to implement the Tribunal's order within six weeks.

The District Educational Officer Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶3

+ WRIT PETITION NO: 11929/2018

% 25.07.2024

Between:

...APPELLANT(S)

The District Educational Officer & 2 others

AND

V. Srinivasulu

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S): G. Raju

¶12

Counsel for the Respondents: S.Satyanarayana Rao

¶13

< Gist :

¶14

Head Note:

¶15

? Cases Referred:

¶16

1 (1997) 8 SCC 372

¶17

2 (2006) 8 SCC 129

¶18

¶19

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶20

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO: 11929/2018

¶22

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 25.07.2024

¶23

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be Yes/No allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes/No of the Judgment?

¶28

___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶29

________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J

¶30

¶31

APHC010267172018

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶33

[3470]

¶34

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 11929/2018

¶38

Between:

¶39

The District Educational Of f icer and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

V Srinivasulu

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

¶45

2.SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent: 1.

¶47

The Court made the following:

¶48

¶49

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶50

W.P.No.11929 of 2018

¶51

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

¶52

Heard Sri G. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services and Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶53

The applicant/respondent while working as Senior Assistant was deputed to Sarva Siksha Abhiyan by the District Educational Officer, Kurnool vide proceedings in Rc.No.734/A2/2007 dated 13.02.2013. He joined Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and was repatriated by proceedings in Rc.No.2175/A1/2004, dated 30.09.2014 and was relieved from the post. On repatriation, he reported before the District Educational Officer, Kurnool on 30.09.2014. Instead of admitting the applicant, the District Educational Officer, Kurnool through his letter Rc.No.734/A2/2007, dated 01.10.2014 requested the Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Kurnool to continue the applicant as Senior Assistant in his office till a substitute was posted in the place of the applicant or a vacancy of Senior Assistant arose in the unit whichever was earlier so as to avoid compulsory wait. However, the project officer did not admit the applicant and the applicant remained without any posting. The District Educational Officer, Kurnool by proceedings in Rc.No.734/A2/2014, dated 20.02.2015

¶54

¶55

issued posting orders to the applicant in his unit. So, the posting was given to the applicant only on 20.02.2015.

¶56

The respondent filed OA.No.2215 of 2015 before Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for direction to the respondents therein to treat the said period from 30.09.2014 to 20.02.2015 as compulsory wait. The prayer in OA is as under:

¶57

“....the applicant prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the entire action of the respondents, not treating the period between 30.09.2014 to 20.02.2015 as compulsory wait for all the purposes i.e., from the date of submitting his joining report for posting orders to till issuing posting orders to the applicant by the 1^st respondent, vide prcog.Rc.No.734/A2/2014, dated 20.02.2015, and not paying salaries during the above said period without any fault from the applicant side as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of power, and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period as compulsory wait for all the purposes w.e.f. 30.09.2024 to 20.02.2015 i.e., from the date of submitting joining report by the applicant to till issuing posting orders to the applicant by the 1^st respondent, vide Prcog.Rc.No.734/A2/2014, dated 20.02.2015 as on duty for all the purposes including payment of salaries etc and pass such order....”

¶58

The OA was disposed of directing the respondents therein (petitioners

¶59

herein) to treat the period from 30.09.2014 to 20.02.2015 as ‘compulsory wait’ with all consequential benefits and pass appropriate orders within a specific time.

¶60

The Tribunal considered that the applicant (respondent herein) was working as Senior Assistant and was deputed to Sarva Siksha Abhiyan by proceedings in Rc.No.734/A2/2007, dated 13.02.2013 and thereafter, he was repatriated to his parent unit by Procs.Rc.No.2175/A1/2014. He submitted the joining report on 30.09.2014 itself. As there was no vacancy of Senior

¶61

¶62

Assistant in the unit, the District Educational Officer by proceedings dated 01.10.2014 requested the Project Officer, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Kurnool to continue the applicant till a substitute was posted or a vacancy of Senior Assistant arose in his unit. The District Educational Officer issued proceedings dated 20.02.2015 for posting orders to the applicant. The applicant was not given the posting orders nearly for five months.

¶63

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as there was no vacancy of Senior Assistant in the parent unit, the proceedings dated 01.10.2014 were issued requesting the Project Officer to continue the respondent as Senior Assistant in his office till a substitute was posted in his office or a vacancy of Senior Assistant arose in the unit. He submits that the respondent ought to have joined on the deputation in the Project Officer’s office pursuant to the proceedings dated 01.10.2014 and as the respondent failed to do so the OA ought not to have been allowed.

¶64

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant was not at fault. On repatriation to the parent unit, he reported on the same date and if the posting was not given the period in issue has rightly been considered by the Tribunal as compulsory wait. There is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal.

¶65

We have considered the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶66

¶67

The submission as advanced by learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioners deserves rejection.

¶68

The respondent was repatriated to his parent unit on 30.09.2014 and on the same day, he reported for joining. The respondent was entitled for the joining to be given on the same day. He could not join, as the District Educational Officer did not grant posting but issued the orders on 01.10.2014 to continue the applicant as Senior Assistant in the repatriated unit till substitute was posted in his place or the vacancy arose in the parent unit. We are of the view that the respondent could not be directed to join on deputation pursuant to the letter dated 01.10.2014 as he could not be compelled to join at the place of deputation after being repatriated there from to the parent unit, without his consent.

¶69

In State of Punjab v. Inder Singh¹ , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the deputation means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position, unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules.

¶70

1 (1997) 8 SCC 372

¶71

¶72

The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that there can be no deputation without

¶73

the consent of the person so deputed. Para-18 reads as under:

¶74

“18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. “Deputation” has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word “deputation” is of no help. In simple words “deputation” means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above. There is no escape for the respondents now to go back to their parent departments and working there as Constables or Head Constables as the case may be.”

¶75

In Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P² ., the Hon’ble Apex Court held

¶76

that the State cannot compel an employee to go on deputation from its parent department to another public sector undertaking unless a statutory rule exits in this behalf. In absence of such a rule, no employer can force an employee to

¶77

join the service of another employer. Para-40 reads as under:

¶78

40. The State can (sic cannot) compel an employee to go on deputation from its parent department to another public sector undertaking unless a statutory rule exits in this behalf. In absence of such a rule, no employer can force an employee to join the services of another employer. Thus, in our opinion, has no application in the instant case.

¶79

Any statutory rule has not been shown to us. The respondent was sent

¶80

on deputation where he joined but after he was repatriated to parent unit, he

¶81

could not be asked to join only in a deputation unit.

¶82

We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶83

2 (2006) 8 SCC 129

¶84

¶85

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶86

The petitioners shall implement the order of the Tribunal within six (06)

¶87

weeks.

¶88

No order as to costs.

¶89

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also

¶90

stand closed.

¶91

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶92

____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶93

Dated: 25.07.2024 Note: L.R. copy be marked B/o. AG

¶94

¶95

181

¶96

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶97

WRIT PETITION NO: 11929/2018

¶98

Dated: 25.07.2024 Note: L.R. copy be marked B/o. AG

The District Educational Officer v. v.Srinivasulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Educational Officer v. v.Srinivasulu

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

Royal Sundaram Alliane Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Thuraka Sowbhagyamma and 3 Others

Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 2 Vs M.Koti Reddy,Prakasam Dist

V Rukmini Vs S Krishna Kumari

Union of India Vs N Bangara Raju

Pampana Raja Rao,S/O (Late) Upmaka, Vs The Union Of India

Jaladi Siva Kumari and Another Vs Chintala Venkata Rama Krishna and Another