Shaik Noorjahan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINACE (ADMIN.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTIRCT.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, , GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASUARY OFFICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.04 Finance (Admn.l) Department dated 10-01-2024 of the 1^st Respondent, revising the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.190 Finance (Admn. Ill) Department dated 8-8-2007 and

¶19

2

¶20

changing the date of regularization as 08-08-2007 instead of 25-11-1993, without issuing any notice, as arbitrary, illegal, for extraneous considerations, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.190 Finance (Admn.Ill) Department, dated 8-8-2007 by setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.04 Finance (Admn.l) Department dated 10-012024 of the 1^st Respondent, and to pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.190 Finance (Admn.lll) Department, dated 8-8-2007 by setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.04 Finance (Admn.l) Department dated 10-01-2024 of the 1^st Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 may be pleased to grant leave for filing of the Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.13052 of 2024 and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶33

“… to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.04 Finance (Admn.l) Department dated 10-01-2024 of the 1^st Respondent, revising the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.190 Finance (Admn. Ill) Department dated 8-8-2007 and changing the date of regularization as 08-08-2007 instead of 25-11-1993, without issuing any notice, as arbitrary, illegal, for extraneous considerations, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No.190 Finance (Admn.Ill) Department, dated 8-82007by setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.04 Finance (Admn.l) Department dated 10-01-2024 of the 1^st Respondent, and to pass such …”

¶34

Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Varun Shyam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondents.

¶35

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a PartTime Masalchi in the office of the Sub-Treasury, Nandyal, with effect from 01.08.1983. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.(P).No.112, dated 23.07.1997, providing for regularization of Part-Time Masalchis who had completed ten years of service, and the petitioner's name was included in the said list. However, her services were not regularised on the ground that she was underage at the time of her appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Government. Upon careful consideration of the matter and taking into account the fact that she was underage at the relevant point of time, the Government treated her case as a special case and

¶36

4

¶37

issued G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007, directing regularization of her services with effect from 25.11.1993 in the Last Grade Services.

¶38

Pursuant to the G.O.Ms. No.190, dated 08.08.2007, the 3rd respondent, by proceedings in Rc. No.A1/5262/2007, dated 03.09.2007, regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from 08.08.2007, i.e., the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.190, instead of 25.11.1993 which is contrary to the guidelines issued in the said G.O.Ms.No.190.

¶39

Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Government and the Government vide Memo No.19902/239/A1/Admn-III/2008, dated 23.01.2009, passed orders rejecting the case of petitioner to regularize her services with effect from 25.11.1993 and confirmed the date of regularization with effect from 08.08.2007. Thereafter, petitioner had filed another representation and the 1^st respondent vide Memo No.294748/65/A2/Admn.I/ 2016, dated 07.12.2016 again rejected the case of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 25.11.1993 and confirmed the date of regularization as 08.08.2007 as was considered by the 3^rd respondent herein.

¶40

Aggrieved by the above said proceedings and non-implementation of G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.18741 of 2021, and this Court by an order dated 14.12.2022 was pleased to pass the following order:

¶41

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Services-I, the

¶42

5

¶43

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the 1st respondent, after careful examination and considering the services rendered by the petitioner and after satisfaction of the eligibility as well as suitability of the petitioner, the petitioner’s services were regularized from the date of her eligibility i.e., from 25.11.1993 and accordingly, the G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 08.08.2007 was issued is valid and reasonable, in view of the G.O. Ms. No.112 as well as G.O. Ms. No.212 issued by the respondents. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007 regularizing the services of petitioner with retrospective manner from 25.11.1993, either 3rd respondent or 2nd respondent have no authority to deviate from the direction of the 1st respondent, since both are Subordinate to the 1^st respondent and they cannot implant their own decision against the decision of the 1^st respondent, is also sustainable for the reason. Once the 1^st respondent being State issued G.O. conferring a Right upon the petitioner it cannot be taken away by any authority except by the 1st respondent by following procedure contemplated either by modification of G.O. or by cancellation of G.O., but it cannot be done by any other mode or by any other Authority. In view of the incompetency on the part of the respondents for issuance of such proceedings in deviation to the G.O. issued by the 1st respondent is not valid and sustainable. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, the memo of the 1st respondent cannot override the right conferred to the Petitioner by issuing G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007.

¶44

7. Thereafter, pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18741 of

¶45

2021, dated 14.12.2022, the Government issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 10.01.2024, rejecting the case of the petitioner as under:

¶46

6. Aggrieved with the above clarification issued by the Government, the individual has filed W.P.No.18741/2021 in the Hon'ble High Court & in the reference 8th read above, the Hon'ble Court has passed the following directions in the WP No. 18741 of 2021 on 14.12.2022.

¶47

"12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as stated above and in view of the foregoing discussion, the present Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondent authorities to take all necessary or consequential steps in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 190 dated 08.08.2007 and set aside the proceedings dated 03.09.2007 as well as 23.01.2009, 07.12.2016. It is needless to observe that if the respondent Authorities intended to follow the procedure as contemplated to rectify the mistakes pursuant to the G.O.Ms. No. 112, they are at liberty to issue appropriate proceedings. No costs,"

¶48

7. Government, after careful examination of the entire matter & the orders of Hon'ble AP High Court. hereby order to revise the date of regularization of the services of the individual as 08-08-2007, on the following grounds.

¶49

6

¶50

The appointment of Smt. Shaik Noorjahan as Part Time Masalchi was ab-initio unlawful, as she was aged 13 years & 3 months at the time of appointment i.e. much below the lawful age of employment. She was also not eligible for regularisation as per the conditions stipulated in G.O. (P) No. 112, Finance & Planning (FW-PC-III) Department, dated 23.07.1997. Her services were regularised only as a special case, on humanitarian grounds, and by taking it outside the purview of the aforementioned G.O. i.e. be relaxing the rules.

¶51

Whereas, the services of the Part Time Masalchis who were eligible for regularisation, as per the conditions stipulated in G.O.(P). No.112, Finance & Planning (FW-PC-III) Department, dated 23-7-1997, were regularized from the date of the issue of the orders i.e. from prospective effect.

¶52

And whereas, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 190, Finance (Admin-III) Department, dated 08.08.2007 are not only contrary to the consistent stand of the Government that regularizations made as per G.O.(P).No.112, Finance & Planning (FW-PC-III) Department, dated 23.07.1997, shall be from the date of the issue of orders i.e. from prospective effect only, but also causes prejudice to the Part Time Masalchis who were eligible for regularisation as per G.O.(P). No.112, Finance & Planning (FW-PCIII) Department, dated 23-7-1997, and whose service were regularized from the date of issue of orders i.e. from prospective effect.

¶53

And further whereas, the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.190, Finance (Admin-III) Department, dated 08.08.2007 are not only not justified, but also create an untenable & anamolous position for the Government in the legal fora, & thus this is a fit case for revision & no prejudice or inequity is caused by the revision to Smt. Shaik Noorjahan, since the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.190, Finance(Admin-III) Department, dated 08.08.2007, provides her a disproportionate benefit & such benefit was not provided even to the persons in a superior position to her i.e. eligible for regularistion as per the rules.

¶54

8. Therefore, after careful consideration, the Government hereby order to revise the orders issued in the reference 3rd read above in respect of date of regulerisation of services of Smt. Shaik Noorjahan, Office subordinate, STO, Nandyal, Kurnool District and order the same to be as 08.08.2007 instead of 25.11.1993.

¶55

8. Aggrieved by the above said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government, having

¶57

considered the fact that the petitioner was underage as on the date of her

¶58

7

¶59

appointment as Part-Time Masalchi, treated her case as a special case and issued G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007, directing regularization of her services with effect from 25.11.1993. The 3rd respondent, being subordinate to the 1st respondent, could not have taken a different stand by fixing a different date for regularization of the petitioner's services. However, the 3rd respondent, by proceedings dated 03.09.2007, fixed the petitioner's date of regularization as 08.08.2007, i.e., the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.190. Since G.O.Ms.No.190 specifically directed regularization of the petitioner's services with effect from 25.11.1993, the 3rd respondent could not have assigned a different date of regularization.

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, despite the petitioner having submitted representations seeking implementation of G.O.Ms.No.190, the 1st respondent, by Memos dated 23.01.2009 and 07.12.2016, rejected the petitioner's claim and confirmed the date of regularization as 08.08.2007 without assigning any reasons. Such rejection is contrary to the express terms of the said G.O.Ms. No.190.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceedings 3rd respondent dated 03.09.2007 and Memos dated 23.01.2009 and 07.12.2016 were challenged in W.P. No.18741 of 2021. This Court, upon considering G.O.Ms. No.190, dated 08.08.2007, issued by the 1st respondent, whereby the petitioner's services were regularized retrospectively with effect from 25.11.1993, held that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, being subordinate authorities to the 1st respondent, could not have taken a stand contrary to that

¶62

8

¶63

of the 1st respondent with regard to the petitioner's age, as the said issue had already been examined and determined by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.190 while directing regularization of her services with effect from 25.11.1993. Accordingly, this Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 03.09.2007, 23.01.2009, and 07.12.2016, and directed the respondents to take all necessary consequential steps in terms of G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007.

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, once the above said proceedings were set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case under G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007, regularizing her services with effect from 25.11.1993, the 1st respondent could not thereafter have taken a contrary stand by issuing impugned G.O.Ms.No.4, Finance (Admn.I) Department, dated 10.01.2024, regularizing the petitioner's services with effect from 08.08.2007 instead of 25.11.1993.

¶65

The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit seeking to justify the action of the 1st respondent by contending that the induction of the petitioner into service itself was unlawful, as she was underage (about 13 years and 3 months) at the time of her appointment as a Masalchi and was not eligible for regularization as per the conditions stipulated in G.O.(P).No.112, Finance & Planning (FW-PC-III) Department, dated 23.07.1997. However, on humanitarian grounds, the Government revised the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 10.01.2024, and regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from

¶66

9

¶67

08.08.2007. It was further contended that G.O.Ms.No.190 was issued by treating the petitioner’s case as a special case and by granting retrospective regularization outside the purview of G.O.(P).No.112, i.e., by relaxing the applicable rules. Such retrospective regularization, would cause prejudice to similarly placed employees whose services were regularized prospectively in accordance with G.O.(P).No.112, as such, the Government has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is warranted by this Court. The 3rd respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶68

State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi , wherein, at Para No.14, it was observed that, “If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized”.

¶69

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. The main objection raised by the respondents is with regard to the underage of the petitioner at the time of her appointment on 01.08.1983. However, in the instant case, the 1st respondent, having considered the said aspect and treating the petitioner’s case as a special case, issued G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007, regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 25.11.1993. Having extended such benefit to the petitioner, the Government cannot subsequently take a different stand. However, the said issue was already considered by this Court in W.P.No.18741 of 2021, wherein this Court allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 03.09.2007 of the 3rd respondent and Memos dated 23.01.2009 and 07.12.2016 and directed the respondents to

¶70

10

¶71

take all necessary consequential steps in terms of G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007. However, the authorities, contrary to the directions issued by this Court, failed to implement G.O.Ms.No.190, dated 08.08.2007, and once again took a different view by issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 10.01.2024, thereby denying the benefit already extended to the petitioner in the year 2007 itself, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶72

In view of the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.4 Finance (Admn.I) Department, dated 10.01.2024 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to implement G.O.Ms.No.190 Finance (Admn.III) Department, dated 08.08.2007. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶73

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶74

________________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶75

Dated: 20.07.2026 M K K / Dvs

¶76

11

¶77

131

¶78

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI