Allowed

Smt.Sunkara Suryavathi v. State Government of Ap.,rep.by its Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jan 2024WP/2491/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a teacher's leave regularization claim. The Court held that selecting a teacher on medical leave for transfer violated rationalization principles and natural justice. It quashed the impugned orders and directed authorities to treat the leave period as compulsory wait and pay consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside; respondents directed to pay consequential benefits and treat leave period as compulsory wait.

Smt.Sunkara Suryavathi Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY .THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

Between:

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 2491 OF 2012

¶8

Jo ■w
Oi
.4

¶9

Smt.Sunkara Suryavathi, W/o.Late Veerabadra Rao Working as Secondary Grade Teachewr St.Ann's Aided Elementary School Jagannayakapur, Kakinada, on deputation at Z.P.High School Turangi, Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

State Government of AP.,rep.by its Secretary, Education Department. Secretaiat Buidlings, Hyderabad

¶13

The Director of School Education, AP Hyderabad, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶14

The District Educational officer. East Godavari At Kakinada Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶15

St.Ann s Aided Elementary School, Jagannayakapur, Kakinada East Godavari District, rep.by its Correspondent

¶16

Srinivasa Convent Aided U.P. School, rep.by its, Correspondent

¶17

Indrapalem, Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2"'^' respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1425/B1-2/2 006 dated 17.10.211 and the consequential proceedings Rc.No.90(B3)B2^/2005

¶20

dated 17.11.2011 issued by the 3 rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to law and further direct the respondents to pay the consequential benefits including the break period salary medical, leave salary increments etc by treating the leave period of the petitioner from ,14.12.2006 to 16.12.2007 as compulsory weight

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012fWPMP. NO. 3105 OF 7ni7)

¶22

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 to direct the respondents to pay the consequential benefits, including the break period salary medical leave salary, increments etc by treating the leave period of the petitioner frorh 14.12.2006 of 16.12.2007 as compulsory weight

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. K RAMAMOHAN-MAHADEVA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶25

The Court made the following

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.2491 of 2012

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 17.10.2011 and the consequential proceedings dated 17.11.2011, whereby the respondent No.3 has rejected^the claim of treating the medical leave period as “compulsory wait”. The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.10.1994 and has been transferred to respondent No.5-School. The petitioner submits that the transfer was under the rationalization scheme of the Government and also submitted that she is not the junior most in the said institution to attract the rationalization scheme. However, on account of the petitioner being on medical leave, she has been chosen for transfer under rationalization scheme which according to the petitioner ought not to have been done by the concerned authorities.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no consent was obtained by the management of the respondentSchool for the alleged transfer and signatures of the

¶31

HN, J W.P.No.2491 of 2012

¶32

//2//

¶33

petitioner which was obtained on blank papers only to accommodate the daughter and daughter-in-law of the correspondent of the respondent No.5-School. illogical transfer, the petitioner filed 3. Aggrieved by the obtained interim order on O.A.No.7277 of 2006 and the order of trsmsfer. The O.A 05.12.2006 by suspending maintainable, as the petitioner was not was dismissed as non aided school. Aggrieved by the working in the Government filed W.P.No. 13706 of 2007, challenging same, the petitioner the proceedings dated 28.10.2006. During the pendency of respondent No.2 instructed the the said writ petition, the on the pretext of withdraw the writ petition petitioner to On such orders in favour of the petitioner. passing assurance, the writ petition was withdrawn and the dated 22.11.2007 No. 2 issued proceedings respondent .3 to continue the service of the directing the respondent No Secondary Grade teacher in the respondent petitioner as at Z.P High School at No.5-School to work on deputation issued subsequent The respondent No.3 Turangi. dated 14.12.2007 permitting the petitioner to proceedings continue as Secondary Grande Teacher in the respondent

¶34

HN. J W.P.No.2491 of 2012

¶35

//3//

¶36

No.5-School to work on deputation at the Z.P. High^Sehool, Turangi. The petitioner submitted the joining report on 17.12.2007 to the Head Master of Z.P.High School and requested to permit the petitioner to join the duty^andalsoto treat the period from 29.10.2006 to 28.11.2006 as on “medical leave” with a further request to declare that^the petitioner is entitled to attend duty from 14.12.2006.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on^the petitioner’s absence from the duty is not the fault on the petitioner’s part, but it is the fault of the respondent^{No. 3.} The petitioner should not be put to disadvantages position. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.12.2007 and the respondent no. 2 issued proceedings dated 12.07.2010 instructing respondent No.3 to sanction the eligible leave to the petitioner from 30.11.2006 to

¶38

16.12.2007. The representations of the petitioner to the respondents to pay the salary regularly and to treat^thesaid period as “on duty” have resulted in issuance of impugned proceedings dated 17.10.2011 wherein, the petitioners^claim for treating the medical leave period as compulsory^wait,was rejected.

¶39

HN, J W.P.No.2491 of 2012

¶40

//4//

¶41

Learned Government Pleader for the School Education submits that the transfer was on account of the unauthorized leave of the petitioner and as such, this Court cannot pass any order in favour of the petitioner more so, when the petitioner was on unauthorized leave.

¶42

The submissions of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner was considered for transfer under the rationalization scheme as she was on leave. Rationalization scheme was introduced by the Government to accommodate the surplus teachers in other aided or Government institutions. However, the junior most teachers would have to be considered for transfer under the rationalization scheme.

¶43

In the present case, the petitioner was chosen for transfer only on account of the petitioner being on leave. This Act of the respondents is not legal and rational, The seniority of an employee would not get altered on account of the employee availing any medical leave or being on any unnoticed leave. Considering the same, this Court finds that the acts of the respondents mi issuing the impugned

¶44

HN, J W.P.No.2491 of 2012

¶45

//5//

¶46

proceedings are illegal and against the principles^ofnatural justice. The impugned proceedings Rc.No.l425/Bl-2/2006, dated 17.10:2011 and Rc.N6.90(B3)B2/2005, dated 17.11.2011 issued by the respondent No.3 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to pay all consequential benefits and also to treat from 14.12.2006^to 16.12.2007 as “compulsory wait”.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall^be

¶48

no order as to costs.

¶49

'v
Pending
'-a
■’a.-,
J closed.:
<K ?' .^5 .'A
i.yr.

¶50

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶51

Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTIOfro^lCER

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

To,

¶54

The Secretary, Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretaiat Buidlings, Hyderabad

¶55

The Director of School Education, AP Hyderabad, Madanapalle Mandal Chittoor District.

¶56

The District Educational officer. East Godavari At Kakinada Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶57

The Correspondent, St.Ann's Aided L Elementary School,

¶58

Jagannayakapur, Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶59

The Correspondent, Srinivasa Convent Aided U.P.School. Indrapalem Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District (Addressees 1 to 5 by RPAD)

¶60

One CC to SRI. K RAMAMOHAN Advocate [OPUCl ^a°desh'OUT?'" ,High Court of Andhra

¶61

Two CD Copies

PSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2491 of 2012

m
X 1 0 JUL 202'»
^ Current Section ^
./

¶68

WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS

Smt.Sunkara Suryavathi v. State Government of Ap.,rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sunkara Suryavathi v. State Government of Ap.,rep.by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goriparthi Venkateswara Yadav, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-cum- Appellate

K. Pratap, Adoni, Kurnool Dist. Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool Dist., and Anr.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs B. Nageswara Rao and Another

S.Smahankali Rao Vs Spl Cadre Dy Regr.,Kdccbl.,M.Patnam and 3

Kota Solman, Guntur District. Vs Apsrtc, by Executive Director, Hyderabad and 3 Others

P. Sarada Kumari Vs the Commissioner of Endowments