B Charan Basavaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

1

¶2

APHC010484692023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25099/2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

B CHARAN BASAVAIAH, S/O B. BALAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. MPHA (M) ON CONTRACT BASIS, SUB-CENTRE KALAMALLA, PHC CHILAMKUR, YSR DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE(HRIV-FRANDLR) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, STATE OF AP, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.

¶15

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, Y S R DISTRICT AT KADAPA

¶16

THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE CHILARNKUR, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, YSR 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 5th respondent herein in issuing the impugned retirement order vide Rc.No.SPL/MO/PHC/ CHILAMKUR/2023, dated 31-8-2023

¶19

2

¶20

without extending the age of superannuation upto 62 years to the petitioner herein also, as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance Department dated 31-1-2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination, contrary to the law and also without jurisdiction and consequential the Hon'ble court may pleased to declaring that the petitioner herein is entitled to continue in service upto 62 years as MPHA (M) on contract basis by setting aside the impugned order dated 31-82023, with all consequential benefits and may pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner in service MPHA (M) on contract basis upto the age of 62 years, by suspending the impugned retirement order issued vide Rc.No.SPL/MO/PHC/ CHILAMKUR/2023, dated 31-8-2023 by the 5^th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 to grant leave to the respondents to file Counter Affidavit in WP.No.25099 of 2023

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶26

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 vacate the Interim Directions granted WP.No.25099 of 2023 dated 25.09.2023, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and to pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.M R TAGORE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶31

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶36

“…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 5th respondent herein in issuing the impugned retirement order vide Rc.No.SPL/MO/PHC/ CHILAMKUR/2023, dated 31-8-2023 without extending the age of superannuation upto 62 years to the petitioner herein also, as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance Department dated 31-1-2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination, contrary to the law and also without jurisdiction and consequential the Hon'ble court may pleased to declaring that the petitioner herein is entitled to continue in service upto 62 years as MPHA (M) on contract basis by setting aside the impugned order dated 31-8-2023, with all consequential benefits and may pass ….”

¶37

Heard M/s M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶38

Considering the submissions on both sides, on 25.9.2023, this Court has passed the following interim order.

¶39

“…Therefore, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned retirement order dated 31.8.2023 issued by the 5^th respondent and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service on contract basis till he attain the age of superannuation of „62‟ years.”

¶40

Despite the above said directions, the respondents have not inclined to continue the petitioner and relieved the petitioner from service on 31.8.2023 and subsequently the respondents have reinstated the petitioner just before his retirement in the month of

¶41

4

¶42

August, 2025 i.e. before retirement up to the date of retirement i.e. up to August, 2025 and accordingly he was retired in the year August, 2025. But the respondents have not chosen to release the salary for the two years period in view of the above said directions. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was entitled for the salary as per the observations of the Division bench of this Court in W.A.No.381 of 2020 and batch dated 01.4.2021 at paragraph no.44 which reads as follows:

¶43

“Before parting with the records, we would like to dwell upon another aspect, which cannot be brushed aside. Despite the interim orders passed by this Court allowing the petitioners to continue in service, in gross violation of such interim orders, they have been retired during the subsistence of the interim orders. The action of the University is condemnable and such action is antithesis to rule of law. The appellants have taken law into their own hands and such action is not expected, least of all from an academic institution. This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such flagrant violation of orders of the Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioners were directed to be continued in service by the interim orders, we direct the appellants to pay salary and emoluments to the writ petitioners from the date when such pay and emoluments were stopped till the date of this judgment within a period of two months from today.”

¶44

The contention of the petitioner is that in identical circumstances,

¶45

the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the salaries to be paid to the petitioner in view of the interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶46

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that immediately after the interim orders, the respondents have filed their counter and vacate stay petition as the

¶47

5

¶48

petitioner is a contract employee and he is not entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and in fact the contract employees continuation is concerned, the Division Bench has already dismissed the Writ Petitions. Hence the petitioner is also not entitled to continue.

¶49

Considering the above said submissions and on perusal of the orders of this court and also the interim orders, the facts remains that this Court has considered and passed the interim orders on 25.9.2023 and subsequently the respondents have also reinstated the petitioner just before the date of retirement i.e. in the month of May, 2025. In the said circumstances by taking the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraph no.44 in Writ Appeal no.381 of 2020 and batch, the respondents are directed to consider and release the salary of the petitioner from the date of interim order till the date of retirement. The exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50