Disposed

Gurram Manjula v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024WP/16172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract Faculty (Telugu Lecturer) directed to retire at 60 sought continuation till 62 under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the Division Bench order dated 13.02.2024 in W.A.No.770 of 2022, which permitted re-engagement beyond 60 subject to G.O. conditions without creating an enforceable right.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of order dated 13.02.2024 in W.A.No.770 of 2022 permitting re-engagement beyond 60 years subject to G.O. conditions; no costs.

Gurram Manjula Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16172 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gurram Manjula, W/o Ramanaiah, Hindu, Aged about 60 years. Contract Faculty (Telugu), R/o D.No.22-929/10/a4, Anjanadri Apartments, Vijaya Nagar, III Marg, KongareddyPalli, Chittoor-I, Chittoor District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶13

The Commissioner of intermediate Education, 8C6M plus 747, Road No.1, Lakshmipuram, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007.

¶14

The Regional Joint Director, Intermediate Education, Kadapa, Y.S.R District.

¶15

The District Vocational Educational Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶16

The Principal, P.C.R. Government Junior College, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly

¶19

one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in orally directing the Petitioner to retire on attaining the age of 60 years i.e., 31-07-2024 as Contract Faculty (Telugu Lecturer) in P.C.R. Government Junior College, Chittoor instead of allowing her to continue till attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years despite the GO.Ms.No.15, Finance (FIR.IV-FR and LR) Department dt.31-01- 2022 and the orders passed in W.P.No.10784/2023, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner beyond 60 years i.e., 31-07-2026 till attaining the age of superannuation at 62 years as Contract Faculty (Telugu Lecturer) in P.C.R. Government Junior College, Chittoor with all consequential benefits

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 202d

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Contract Faculty (Telugu Lecturer) in P.C.R. Government Junior College, Chittoor beyond 60 years i.e., 31-07-2026 till attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years in the interest of justice till disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 5: GP FOR SERVICES III

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

APHC010319732024

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 16172/2024

¶32

Between:

¶33

Gurram Manjula ...PETITIONER

¶34

‘ AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶38

The Court made the following Order:

¶39

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶40

“ to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly^onein the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action^of the Respondents in orally directing the Petitioner to retire on attaining the age of 60 years i.e., 31-07-2024 as Contract Faculty (Telugu Lecturer) in P.C.R. Government Junior College, Chittoor instead of allowing her to continue till attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years despite the GO.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Department dt. 31-01-2022 and the orders passed in W.P.No.

¶41

¶42

10784/2023, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner beyond 60 years i.e., 31-07-2026 till attaining^the age of superannuation at 62 years as Contract Faculty (Telugu Lecturer) in P.C.R. Government Junior College, Chittoor iv/ith all consequential benefits and pass”.

¶43

Heard Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents.

¶44

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 13.02.2024 in W.A.No.770 of 2022.

¶45

The learned Assistant Government Pleader did not refute the said submission. 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed W.A.No.770 of 2022, assailing the order passed in W.P.No.21294 of 2023. The said W.A.No.770 of 2022 was allowed in part and the liberty was given to the appellants to re-engage the contract employees, if the appellants 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. Revisions was also made clear that the order passed in W.A.No.770 of 2022 shall not be construed as creating a right in any contractual employee to demand a

¶46

¶47

¶48

direction in the nature of a mandamus to continue them in service up to or beyond the age of “62 years”.

¶49

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 13.12.2024 in W.A.No.770 of 2022. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

The Registry is directed to annex a copy of the order dated 13.12.2024 in W.A.No.770 of 2022 to this order.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT\REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri A Syam Sundar Reddy, Advocate [OPUO

¶57

Two CCs to GP for Services III, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶58

Three CD Copies

¶59

(Along with a copy of the order dated 13.12.2024 in WA.No.770 of 2022) ASK

HIGH COURT

ASK

DATED:04/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.16172 of 2024

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

[3463 ]

[Sin the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶70

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

¶71

PRESENT

¶72

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶73

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶74

WRIT APPEAL NO: 770 OF 2022

¶75

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal aggrieved by the order^dt.12- 07-2022 in WP No. 9130 of 2021 passed by the Honourable Justice DR. K. MANMADHA RAO on the file of the High Court.; Between:

¶76

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶77

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

¶78

The Additional Joint Collector/DRO/Chairman,, District Selection Committee for the Renewal of Contract Faculty, Government Degree Colleges, Srikakulam District.

¶79

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

¶80

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

¶81

...APPELLANT(S)

¶82

AND

¶83

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.

¶84

...RESPONDENTS

¶85

¶86

The Court made the following:

¶87

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

¶88

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 reengagement of the employee on similar contractual terms if the employee was found fit enough to continue to discharge duties.

¶89

The Writ Petition came to be disposed of as under:

¶90

“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 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.

¶91

¶92

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would attempt to place reliance on certain interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge. On perusal of the same, it is seen 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. 7) Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, No order as to costs.

¶93

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

¶94

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.

¶95

¶96

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

¶97

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”.

¶98

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. 8) 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 no order as to costs.

¶99

¶100

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

¶101

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

¶102

JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶103

Sm.../..

¶104

JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

Gurram Manjula v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurram Manjula 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R R D Prasad Vs the State of Ap

Smt Gandlum. Veera Mrunalini, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Syam Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chadalavada Jalaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

J Suraj Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G K Visalakshi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh