K Raja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K RAJA, K.RAJA, S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC SWEEPER-CUM-NIGHT WATCHMAN, 0/O. JOINT COMMISSIONER( STATE TAX), CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE ( CT-III) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV-FR AND LR) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX(ST) DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX (ST) CHITTOOR DIVISION, CHITTOOR.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents herein in retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 60 years vide

¶18

2

¶19

impugned proceeding.Rc.No.B2/105/2018, dated 31-1-2023 as highly illegal, arbitrary and discrimination and also contrary to the law and consequential the Hon'ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned proceeding dated 31-12023, by declaring that the petitioner herein is also entitled to continue in service upto 62 years with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and may pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

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 pleased to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner in service as Sweeper¬cum-Night Watchman, at 4th respondent office upto the age of 62 years, by suspending the impugned proceeding.Rc.No.B2/105/2018, dated 31-1-2023 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶23

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 Pleased to vacate the interim order in IA 1/2023 in WP. 4426/2023 dt 23-022023

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.M R TAGORE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO.4426/2023

¶32

ORDER:-

¶33

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶34

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶35

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 60 years vide impugned proceeding Rc.No.B2/105/2018, dated 31.1.2023 as highly illegal, arbitrary and discrimination and also contrary to the law and consequential the Hon’ble court may pleased to set aside the impugned proceeding dated 31.1.2023 by declaring that the petitioner herein is also entitled to continue in service upto 62 years with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and may pass such other order or orders….”

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, on 23.02.2023, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order, which reads as

¶38

follows:

¶39

“Therefore, there shall be an interim suspension of the impugned proceedings of the 4^th respondent vide Rc.No.B2/105/2018, dated 31.01.2023, and the respondents are hereby directed to continue the service of the petitioner as Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman upto the age 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 31.01.2023

¶41

and subsequently the respondents have reinstated the petitioner on

¶42

4

¶43

25.03.2023 w.e.f 01.02.2023 and allowed the petitioner to continue in service

¶44

till March, 2024 and from 1^st April, 2024 the petitioner was not allowed to continue his service. But the respondents have not chosen to release the salary for 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 01.04.2021 at paragraph No.44 which reads as follows:

¶45

“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.”

¶46

The contention of the petitioner is that in identical circumstances, the

¶47

Hon’ble 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.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that immediately after

¶49

the interim orders, the respondents have filed their counter and vacate stay petition as the petitioner is a contract employee and he is not entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.10.2022 and in fact the contract employees continuation is concerned, the Division Bench has already

¶50

5

¶51

dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the petitioner is also not entitled to continue.

¶52

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 23.02.2023 and subsequently the respondents have also reinstated the petitioner on 25.03.2023 w.e.f., 01.02.2023 and continued the petitioner till March, 2024 and not allowed the petitioner to continue his service from 1^st April, 2024. 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. This entrie exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53