Allowed

J Venkata Ramana Murthy v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024WP/4545/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired employee seeking annual increments, revised pay, and retirement benefits. The direction was issued after the appeal dismissing the lower authority's order cancelling the petitioner's caste status was set aside, clearing the dispute required for finalizing his service benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to release annual increments, revised pay, interim bonus, notional promotion, arrear difference of PF, and other retirement benefits within two months.

J Venkata Ramana Murthy Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 4545 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

J Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o Appa Rao,Age.61 years, Occ. Employee in Hindustan Shipyard R/ o D.No 28-64-1/13, Sowmya - Residency Samatha Nagar, Pedgantyada, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam 530044. ...Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

Union of India, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi.

¶10

Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Rep by its Chairman, Gandhigram, Hindustan Shipyard, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh -^530005.

¶11

The Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Dist., at Visakhapatnam.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^*^ Respondent in not finalizing and releasing of Annual Increments, Revised Pay, Interim Bonus, Notional Promotion and for release of arrear differences, difference of PF and releasing of other Retirement Benefits, petitioner in view of the proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent vide E. Office No. 38/2020/C5, dated 03.09.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to finalize and to release the Annual Increments, Revised Pay, Interim Bonus, Notional Promotion and also to release of arrear, difference of PF and also to release the other Retirement Benefits,

¶14

in pursuance to the proceedings issued by the 3'"^ Respondent vide E. Office No. 38/2020/C5, dated 03.09.2021.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2"^ Respondent to take consider my representation and dispose of my representation dated 09.02.2021 and 12.11.2021 to finalize and to release the Annual Increments, Revised Pay, Interim Bonus, Notional Promotion and also to release of arrear differences, difference of PF and also to release the other Retirement Benefits pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T V P SAI VIHARI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI V VENKATA NAGA RAJU (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.RAJASEKHAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following order:

¶22

APHC010069932022

¶23

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

¶24

[3310]

¶25

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 4545/2022

¶29

Between:

¶30

J Venkata Ramana Murthy ...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

1.TVPSAI VIHARI

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

1.VVENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

¶37

2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.P RAJASEKHAR

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶41

seeking the following relief;

¶42

to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not finalizing and releasing of Annual Increments Revised Pay Interim Bonus Notional Promotion and for release of arrear differences difference of PF and releasing of^{otherRetirementBenefits} petitioner in view of the proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent vide E

¶43

Office No 38/2020/C5 dated 03.09.2021, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to finalize and to release the Annual Increments Revised Pay Interim Bonus Notional Promotion and also to release of arrear difference of PF and also to release the other Retirement Benefits in pursuance to the proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent vide E Office No 38/2020/C5 dated 03,09,2021 and pass any other order this Honourable Court may deem fit^{intheinterestofJustice} and to pass ..."

¶44

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as ■Paintmate" in the 2'^^ Respondent Company on 02.11.1982 and got retired from the services on 30.11.2020. The main grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of joining in the organization, he had^{submittedhiscastecertificate} transfer certificate and family particulars etc. It is stated that, earlier, the petitioner’s service was terminated at particular point of time due to unauthorized absence and later he was reinstated into service as per directions of this Court in WP No.279/1986. Again the organization was about to terminate his service due to non-production of the Caste certificate. By knowing the same, the petitioner had approached the I Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam and the same was decreed on 7.12.1996 by directing the organization not to terminate the service of the petitioner till the enquiry is concluded. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another WP^{No.21433/2001} before this Court seeking for regularization of his^{serviceandthe} same was also disposed of directing the 2"^^ respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

¶45

While the matter stood thus, upon the request made by the Manager of the 2"^^ respondent, the 3'"'^ respondent has cancelled^{hiscastecertificateand} issued gazette notification on 12.03.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the

¶46

¶47

petitioner preferred an appeal petition before the Government of A.P. against the impugned proceedings of the 3^^ respondent and^{thesamewasallowed} setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 13.03.2012. Later, the petitioner made a representation dated 9.2.2021 to the HR of the 2 nd respondent organization intimating about the order passed by the Government and requested to finalizing of annual increments, Revised Pay, Interim Bonus, National Promotion and for release of arrear differences and also to release other retirement benefits. But the 3'”'' respondent issued the proceedings vide E.Office NO.38/2020/C5, dated 3.9.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated 12.11.2021 to the officials of the 2"'^ respondent along with orders passed by the O"'* respondent dated 3.9.2021 revoking the orders passed by the authority vide Progs(M)D.Dis.No.301/2009/C5^,dated 12.03.2012 to consider his case. But no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Hence the present writ petition.

¶48

The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2"^^ respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, contended^{that,thepetitioner} is not entitled to the writ prayers without producing^{avalidcastecertificate} issued by the competent authority, without seeking regularization of his service in HSL before the date of his retirement according^tolaw. Further, the petitioner suppressed the material facts of receiving his gratuity and PF in the writ petition. There are no violations of rights of petitioner both statutory and fundamental. It is further stated that there are several disputed questions of facts involved in the writ petition and that the petitioner^has an effective

¶49

¶50

alternative remedy of raising a dispute under Industrial Laws and hence the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who kept silent over his alleged rights, If any, based on his caste status till his retirement age for want of production of caste certificate issued from competent authority, is also not entitled to seek indulgence of this Court on the ground of his delay and latches. It is further stated that, the HSL did not receive Caste verification report from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. Shri JVR Murthy, retired from HSL services w.e.f. 30*'' November 2020 on attaining the age of superannuation prior receipt of order from District Collector, Visakhapatnam. On his retirement the said JVR Murthy was paid PF (both employee and employer share) due to him. Subsequently, gratuity for an amount of Rs.4,84,338/- was also paid on 04*" May 2022. It is further stated that consequent to the order passed by the Social Welfare (TW.CV.2) Department, Govt, of A P on 2"^* February 2021, Shri J.V.R Murthy has submitted representation vide his letter dated 9*" Fpb 2021 requesting HSL to fix his annual increments, revised pay, interim bonus, notional promotion and for release of differential arrears etc. The request of Shri JVR Murthy could not be processed since the matter is sub-judice. It is further stated that, based on the direction given by Social welfare department, AP, the District collector has set aside the earlier order given by District collector, Visakhapatnam on 12.03.2012 vide his order dated 03.09.2021 which was submitted to HSL by Shri JVR Murthy on 12.11.2021 after one year

¶51

¶52

of his superannuation. As there are no valid and justified grounds in the writ petition, prayed to dismiss tne same.

¶53

Heard Sri T.V. P Sai Vihari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶54

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶55

Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing^forthe official respondents vehemently opposed for grant of any relief and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶56

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2^^ respondent submits that, on a complaint dated 5.12.1989 received^from the General Secretary, Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes uplift Union, recognized by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt, of India, the matter^wasreferred to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam for verification^{ofcastestatusofSriJVR} Murthy, since the caste status was under verification by the District Magistrate and Collector, Visakhapatnam, the caste certificate issued by Huzur Sirishtadar and Ex-office II Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam was not accepted by HSL and thus his ST Caste status fell in dispute in the year 1983. He further submits that, after several letters/correspondence,^on12.03.2012

¶57

the District Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam^{cancelledtheST}

¶58

¶59

caste certificate of Sri JVR Murthy, vide order dated 12.03.2012 while mentioning that an appeal lies to the Government against^{thesaidorderwithin} 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. Later, the said JVR Murthy has filed an appeal before the Government of AP against^{theorderofcancellation} of the ST Caste status and the same is now pending hence JVR Murthy is being continued in service on temporary basis without annual increment.

¶60

Learned counsel further submits that as per Company’s police vide C&MD’s Industrial Order dated 28.03.1990 giving effect^{from01.01.1990the} first annual increment to a new recruit shall be granted^{onthedateonwhich} he/she is confirmed in the post after successful completion of probation period. He further submits that the said JVR Murthy was granted annual increment on 01.01.1990 as per the old procedure and in view of the police decision taken in March 1990 giving effect from 01.01.1990 status quo was maintained in his case as he was not confirmed in the post. This does not merely confer any right on him to claim for regularization. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the decision can be taken in the case only after disposal of the appeal about his caste status from the Government of AP. He further stated that with regard to grant of annual increments, it is stated that JVR Murthy was taken as a fresh entrant from 09.01.1989 against a vacancy reserved for ST for which submissions of ST Caste certificate is a must which requirement has not been fulfilled, so far, as a result of which he is not confirmed in the post. Further, as per organization’s policy, annual increments would be granted to the new entrants who are confirmed in their posts. Since

¶61

¶62

the said JVR Murthy is not confirmed in the post it^{isnotpossibletogrant} annual increments to him. Therefore, as there are no^{meritsinthepresent} writ petition, learned counsel prayed to dismiss the^{writpetition.}

¶63

Perused the material available on record.

¶64

As seen from the Standing Orders of Hindustan Shipyard^Limited, it is observed that, as per Standing Order No.3 clause^(c ) : A temporary worker is one who is engaged for work which is of an essentially^{temporarycharacter.} 11. On a perusal cf appeal petition filed by Sri J.V.Ramanamurth^y, which was allowed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.3 Social Welfare wherein it was stated that (TW.CV.2) Department, dated 02.02.2021 “Government, after careful examination of the appeal^{petitionandinexercise} conferred under Section 7(2) of A.P. (Scheduled Castes, of the powers Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of^{IssueofCommunity} Certificates Act, 1993 (Act 16 of 1993) and rules made^{thereunderhereby} allow the appealpetition filed by Sri J.V.R Murthy,^Occ: Painter Mate in Hindustan Ship Yard Ltd., Visakhapatnam, and the proceedings^in(M)Dis y NO.301/2009/C5 dated 13.03.2012 of the District Collector,^{Visakhapatnam} are hereby set aside duly upholding he appellant’s Scheduled^Tribe(Konda Kapu) claim. It is also held that “The District Collector,^{Visakhapatnam} is directed to take necessary consequential action in^{thematteraccordingly.}

¶65

Thereafter, the impugned proceedings were issued^{bytheCollector} dated District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam vide E.Office No.38/2020/C5

& District

3.9.2021, wherein the orders passed by the District^{Collectorvideprogs(M)} Dis NO.301/2009/C5 dated 12.03.2012 is hereby revoked as per the G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 2.2.2021.

¶70

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this^{Courtisinclinedtoallow} the present writ petition.

¶71

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to release the annual increments Revised Pay^{interimbonusNational} promotion and to release the arrear difference of PF^{andalsootherretirement} benefits to the petitioner in pursuance of the proceedings^issuedbythe3 rd respondent vide E.Office No.38/2020/C5 dated 03.09.2021,^{withintwo(02)} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any^{pending, shallstand}

closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUT'J^EGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶77

The Principal Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi.

¶78

The Chairman, Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Gandhigram,^Hindustan Shipyard, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530005.

¶79

The Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam Dist., at Visakhapatnam.

¶80

One CC to Sri T V P Sai Vihari, Advocate [OPUC]

¶81

One CC to Sri P.Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶82

One CC to Sri V Venkata Naga Raju, (Central Govt. Counsel) [OPUC]

¶83

Two CCs GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶84

Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.4545 of 2022

ov
C 10 JAN 2025
Current Section
^‘^i£espArcv&^'

¶91

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

J Venkata Ramana Murthy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Venkata Ramana Murthy v. Union of India

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

Revuri Kanakadurga Vs the State of Ap

Jatawath Srinu Naik S/o. Keerya Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Venkata Krishna Reddy,S/o.P.v.Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vepada Varahalamma (Died) Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Noorulla Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Lok Cements Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh