Remanded

A.Manjula Devi v. Government of a.P., represented by Principal Secretary

Telangana HC16 Nov 2011WP/26577/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a former fixed tenure employee against an order declining extension of her services. Court directed the respondent to conduct a fresh performance appraisal under a specific circular and pass fresh orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to undertake performance appraisal of petitioner under the circular dated 21.4.2011 and pass fresh orders for extension or otherwise within six weeks.

A.Manjula Devi Vs Government of a.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WP NO. 26577 OF 2010

¶3

Date of Judgment: 16.11.2011

Between:

A. Manjula Devi

…Petitioner

and

Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal

¶9

Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶12

WP NO. 26577 OF 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Heard Mr. G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash

¶15

Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and with the consent of both the learned counsel, this writ petition itself is being disposed of at the stage of vacate stay petition.

¶16

The petitioner herein is a Fixed Tenure Contract (FTE) employee working as Assistant Project Director for the tenure from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2010. She was given a notice dated 18.3.2009 framing six charges against her and on the basis of the said charges, a final order of termination was passed against her on 28.5.2009. Questioning the said order, inter alia on the ground that it was passed without conducting enquiry, she filed WP No. 28451 of 2009. This Court by order dated 6.4.2010 set aside the said order of termination and the conclusive portion of the said order reads as under,

¶17

“6. At the same time, it is to be noted that the contract appointment given to the petitioner is expired by 31^st of March 2010. In that view of the matter, no direction can be given for reinstatement of petitioner. It is open to the respondents to independently decide as to whether the services of petitioner are to be extended or not and take steps accordingly. It is made clear that if the services of petitioner are not satisfactory, it is open to the respondents to take a decision either to continue or not, the contract service of petitioner.”

¶18

Thereafter the petitioner gave a representation dated 26.4.2010 which was re-considered by the Commissioner, RD & Chief Executive Officer, SRDS, Hyderabad and by his order dated 19.6.2010 he came to

¶19

the conclusion that the performance of the petitioner was dismal, apart from other assessment of adamancy, stubbornness and negligence in discharge of her duties. Consequently it was concluded that on account of her lack of devotion to duty and poor performance, her case did not deserve favourable consideration for extension of service beyond the tenure. The aforesaid order is questioned in this writ petition.

¶20

By order dated 10.11.2010 when the writ petition was admitted, the following directions were given,

¶21

“It is no doubt true that the appointment of the petitioner was for a period of two years and that period has expired. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the 3^rd respondent has passed the impugned order expressing his inability to continue the petitioner as Assistant Project Director, Raghunathpally Cluster. Certain Statistics are furnished in support of his conclusion.

¶22

The petitioner, in turn, has placed before this Court the extract of the performance of Assistant Project Directors of as many as 10 clusters in the District. In terms of performance, petitioner virtually figures at the third place. Hence, it is directed that in case, any Assistant Project Director with relatively lesser performance than the petitioner, in terms of average days of employment for House Holds, is being continued, the petitioner shall also be continued subject to same terms.”

¶23

Now a vacate stay petition has been filed. Respondents 2 and 3 have also filed counter-affidavits. It

¶24

is stated in the counter-affidavit of third respondent that the petitioner’s performance was duly assessed before the impugned order was passed and in the said order, the respondents have declined to extend the petitioner’s service beyond the tenure which has already expired. Along with the counter-affidavit, the third respondent has also produced a circular issued by Society for Rural Development Services No. 241/SRDS/HR/Extension of Contracts/2010, dated 21.4.2011 wherein a policy decision was taken for renewal of contract of Fixed Tenure Employees (FTEs) for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2012 at a stretch to ensure continuity of the contracts of the FTEs. The circular envisages assessment of performance of such FTEs and the benefit of extension is available only to eligible FTEs.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order reiterates self-same allegations, which were subject matter of earlier order of termination which was set aside by this Court. He, therefore, submits that there was no appraisal of the petitioner’s performance in an objective manner and submits that in view of the subsequent circular referred to above, the petitioner’s case deserves to be considered afresh.

¶26

The impugned order, no doubt, refers to various events leading to the order of this Court in WP No. 28451 of 2009, but, at the same time, key performance parameters for the years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009

¶27

during which period the petitioner worked, were assessed and considered and the ultimate decision of not to extend the services was reached. Whether the said decision amounts to performance appraisal of the petitioner as contemplated under the circular dated 21.4.2011 is, however, not clear. The circular undoubtedly is subsequent to the date of impugned order and in the circumstances it would be in the interest of justice and appropriate that when performance of all Fixed Tenure Employees is being considered for the purpose of extension in terms of the said circular, the petitioner’s case also deserves to be examined from the point of view of her eligibility for extension of contract.

¶28

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the third respondent to undertake and complete the performance appraisal of the petitioner as contemplated under the circular dated 21.4.2011 referred to above and pass, within six weeks, appropriate fresh orders for extension or otherwise of the petitioner beyond the tenure of 31.3.2010 as prayed for, in terms of the aforesaid circular. No costs.

¶29

_________________________

¶30

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶31

Dt. 16.11.2011 KR

A.Manjula Devi v. Government of a.P., represented by Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Manjula Devi v. Government of a.P., represented by Principal 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

Sri Sai Constructions Vs The Union of India

A.D.M Akbar Khan Vs The Ministry Of External Affairs Rep,.by

S. Dharma Raju, Vs Flag Officer Commanding in Chief

Raghuram Roshan, Vs The Regional Passport Officer

M/s.Madhucon Granites Ltd., rep.by its Manager Vs The State rep.by the Director of Mines and Geology

Mohammed Khaled, Vs The Regional passport officer