Allowed

G.Gopal Rajaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Dec 2011WP/7253/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a Government Memo that rejected the petitioner's claim for Grant-in-Aid status. Relying on the Supreme Court, it held that administrative bans are prospective. The Court directed the Government to consider the petitioner's case on par with approved juniors and release arrears to the deceased petitioner's heirs.

What did the court decide?

Memo No. 11188/PS-1/2005 set aside; respondent directed to consider petitioner's case for Grant-in-Aid and release salary/benefits to legal representatives within two months.

G.Gopal Rajaiah Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 7253 of 2002

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the respondent in Memo No.11188/PS-1/2005 dated 02.07.2005, whereby the case of the petitioner for grant-in-aid was not considered on par with his juniors whose cases have been considered after his retirement, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to release the salary attached to the aided posts for the period the petitioner worked i.e. from 1994 to 2002, including all consequential benefits.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents-government.

¶6

The brief facts of the writ petition are:-

¶7

The petitioner was appointed as Craft Teacher in the 3^rd respondent-school on 12.06.1981, and his appointment was approved by the District Education Officer by his proceedings in Rc.No.10202/B2/93 dated 16.05.1994 with effect from the date of appointment to the unaided post. The Director of School Education, vide his proceedings in L.Dis.No.3336/D1-2/93 dated 06.04.1994

¶8

have ratified the creation of posts, including that of the petitioner’s post of Craft Teacher. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.238, Education (SSE) Department dated 27.05.1986, deciding to admit all the schools which were opened after 01.04.1977, with the permission of competent authority and have completed a certain minimum period of existence. However, due to certain complaints in the process of admission of schools into Grant-in-Aid, the Government constituted a High Level Committee, vide G.O.Ms.No.220, Education (SE-I) Department dated 24.02.1988, to examine all such cases of Grant-in-Aid. The 3^rd respondent-school satisfied all the requirements specified in G.O.Ms.No.238 dated 27.08.1986, and accordingly, the High Level Committee has recommended for release of Grant-in-Aid to the 3^rd respondent-school. Further, the District Education Officer, in response to the proceedings of the Director of School Education in Rc.No.1057/D2-1/92 dated 31.05.1994, has also recommended to the Director of School Education for absorption of the posts in the 3^rd respondent-school into Grant-in-Aid vide Rc.No.10202/B2/93 dated 11.06.1994, and also sent proposal to the 1^st respondent-Secretary, Education Department, for approval and sanction, and the Finance Department gave its concurrence for the proposals with effect from 1995.

¶9

It is stated that the Regional Director of School

¶10

Education, Cuddapah, by his proceedings in Rc.No.664A2/92 dated 17.06.1992 sent proposal for admission to Grant-in-Aid to five schools, including the 3^rd respondent school; and the Director of School Education has also issued proceedings in Rc.No.1546/D2-1/91 dated 01.03.1993. But the 1^st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.88, Education, dated 19.03.1994, passed orders for admission of Grant-in-Aid of certain un-aided private secondary schools, without including the 3^rd respondent school. It is further averred that the 1^st respondent has released Grant-in-Aid in respect of St.Paul’s Aided School, Giddalur, Prakasham District, vide G.O.Ms.No.261 dated 10.07.1995, and that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.50, Education Department, dated 29.03.1997, admitting one post of Craft Teacher in Sri Venkateshwara Sanskrit High School, Yerpedu, Chittoor District. The 2^nd respondent by his proceedings in Rc.No.1036/D2-2/91 dated 13.12.1994, communicated the G.O.Rt.No.2016 dated 09.11.1994, by which the government has condoned the defunct period as a special case to Sri Balasiva Girls High School, Mydukur, Cuddapah District and the said school was admitted to Grant-in-Aid from 01.10.1994. The 1^st respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.145, Education, dated 08.11.2001, admitted SBNRN Primary School and some other schools for admission of certain posts into Grant-in-Aid, in pursuance of orders of this

¶11

Court in WP No.4083 of 2001 & batch, and the 1^st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.153, Education, dated 26.11.2001, for admission of certain posts into Grant-inAid in AVS Oriental Upper Primary School, Madavaram, Cuddapah District, in pursuance of orders of this Court in WP No.12549 of 2000. But the petitioner was not admitted in Grant-in-Aid even though the proposals were submitted in 1994.

¶12

It is further submitted that a Record Assistant by name, P.Kasi Reddy, who is junior to the present petitioner by one year, is receiving Grant-in-Aid by proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 02.09.2000, in pursuance of the orders of this Court in WP No.20241 of 1999 on 04.04.2000.

¶13

It is further submitted that though the petitioner was appointed in 1981 in the 3^rd respondent-school, his post was approved only during 1994 and that though the High Level Committee approved Grant-in-Aid to his post, his case has not been considered till date; whereas the cases of other similarly situated persons, including one P.Kasi Reddy who is junior to him, were considered for Grant-inAid.

¶14

Aggrieved by the action of the respondentgovernment in not admitting his post in Grant-in-Aid, even though his case met all the prescribed requirements specified for Grant-in-Aid and even after the recommendations of High Level Committee appointed by

¶15

the Government, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶16

The petitioner originally filed this writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, assailing the action of the respondents in not admitting his post into Grant-in-Aid following the recommendation of the High Level Committee vide File No.2111/PS-2/94, dated 14.02.1994, on par with similarly situated persons working in the 3^rd respondent school, whose posts were admitted in Grantin-Aid, as illegal, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to release entire arrears of salaries attached to the post, with all consequential benefits from the year 1994 to 2002.

¶17

The petitioner, along with the writ petition, filed WPMP No.9070 of 2002, wherein this Court ordered as under:-

¶18

“This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying this Court to direct the respondents to consider his post into Grant-in-Aid basing on the recommendation of the High Level Committee on File No.2111/PS-2/94, dated 14-21994 on part with similarly situated persons who are working in the third respondent school and whose post was admitted into grant-in-aid, pending final disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Heard Mrs. G. Lakshmi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education.

¶20

It appears that the respondents have not taken any action in admitting the post of the petitioner into Grant-in-Aid following the recommendations made by the High Level Committee in File No.2111/PS-2/94, dated 14-2-1994 on par with the petitioner who was placed in a

¶21

similar situation in W.P.No.20241 of 1991, dated 4-42000. Inspite of the recommendations made by the High Level Committee in the year 1994, i.e., after a lapse of about eight years, the acute silence and low profile demonstrated by the Government is very unsatisfactory.

¶22

Further the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this court that the persons who were placed in a similar situation have been accorded the benefit that is sought by the petitioner.

¶23

When the petitioner is unfortunately going to retire from 1-7-2002, the respondents could have considered the case of the petitioner with due regard.

¶24

Irrespective of the eventual retirement of the petitioner and pending final disposal of the writ petition, the first respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner with due regard and diligence particularly in the light of the recommendations made by the High Level Committee and having regard to the longevity of the services rendered by the petitioner and also keeping in view the fact that this benefit is already extended in several other cases.

¶25

With the above directions, the petition is allowed. No costs.”

¶26

This Court, by order dated 04.03.2005 in WPMP

¶27

No.3228 of 2005, observed as follows:

¶28

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent and counter affidavit is filed. Having regard to the fact that interim direction already issued in WPMP No.9070 of 2002 dated 27.06.2002, and also in view of the fact that the Juniors of the petitioner already given similar such relief, there cannot be any objection in acceding the request of the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.

¶30

The respondent-government filed WVMP No.2074 of 2005 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 04.03.2005 in WPMP No.3228 of 2005. This Court, by

¶31

order dated 06.06.2006, disposed of the writ petition observing that since an interim order was granted to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to Grantin-Aid, there was no need to consider the vacate stay petition at this stage in view of the orders passed by Government in Memo No.11188/PS-1/2005 dated 02.07.2005, wherein the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected, and the Court ordered to post the writ petition for final hearing in August, 2006.

¶32

While so, the petitioner filed WPMP No.16945 of 2006, seeking to amend the prayer in the writ petition. This Court, by order dated 13.07.2006, permitted the petitioner to amend the prayer, and ordered the WPMP. The petitioner again filed WPMP No.16946 of 2006, seeking suspension of the Government Memo No.11188/PS-1/2005 dated 02.07.2005, wherein this Court, by order dated 17.08.2006, dismissed the said WPMP, holding that there are no grounds to suspend the impugned proceedings.

¶33

The petitioner was in service and was aged about 58 years at the time of filing this writ petition. Since the petitioner expired, WPMP No.34956 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners 2 to 4 therein to come on record as legal representatives of the original petitioner. By order dated 03.01.2007, the said WPMP, along with the writ petition, was ordered to be posted for final hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶34

relief sought for in the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WP No.14861 & batch on 29.11.2011. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the Government vide Memo No. 11188/PS-1/2005 dated 02.07.2005, on the issue of absorption, on the ground that the Government issued Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-04, Education, dated 20.10.2004, whereunder, no new posts of Grant-in-Aid would be created and the existing vacancies would also not be filled up, except what has been specifically authorized and for which permission was specifically granted by the government, since there is a general ban on recruitment except for the posts.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently in GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND OTHERS v. SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL AND

¶36

OTHERS^[1] , the Apex Court observed that:

¶37

“Even the approval which was granted for filling up the vacant aided posts, had been granted after due scrutiny as to the requirements of the schools in question. Since it is well settled that administrative orders are prospective in nature, unless they are expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect.

¶38

The fact that remains undisputed is that the selections in question were made much prior to the orders of the Government, dated 20.10.2004 imposing ban on the appointments.”

¶39

Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for

¶40

the petitioner that the impugned Memo dated 02.07.2005 imposing ban can only be prospectively effected and not

¶41

retrospectively. Therefore, the counsel submits that while setting aside the impugned Memo dated 02.07.2005, the government may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶42

It is relevant to note that pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment stated supra, this Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions, viz., W.P.No.14861 of 2011 and batch, by order dated 29.11.2011, wherein this Court observed as follows:

¶43

“In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the order of the Government imposing ban that has been passed subsequent to the approval of the selection of the candidates in question, cannot be made applicable as retrospective in nature.

¶44

For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (Citation 1 supra) and in view of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19264 of 2011, dated 7.6.2011 and W.P.No.21755 of 2011, dated 10.2.2011, I feel it just and proper to direct respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in all the writ petitions for admission into grant in aid on par with the case of Sri D.Musal Reddy and P.Kasi Reddy of Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalayam High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District conferring similar benefits as was done in G.O.Ms.No.144, School Education (PS.I) Department, dated 1.10.2004, after due notice to all the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶45

With the above direction, all the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs.

¶46

In the present writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed initially against the unaided post in the 3^rd respondent school. However, subsequent to Government’s decision to extend Grant-in-Aid status to schools which met certain prescribed criteria, a High Level

¶47

Committee was constituted to examine the cases of Grant-in-Aid and the Committee recommended admission of Grant-in-Aid to the post of the petitioner. Basing on the same, the petitioner’s case was forwarded through proper channel to the Government for absorption of the petitioner against the Grant-in-Aid post. Surprisingly, the Government has passed orders of Grant-in-Aid in respect of similarly situated employees and also to persons junior to the petitioner in the 3^rd respondent school, but rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that there is a general ban on extending any new Grant-in-Aid status, vide Government Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-04, Education, dated 20.10.2004. The Honourable Apex Court has, time and again, clarified that the said administrative orders can only be prospectively brought into force but not with retrospective effect.

¶48

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed prior to imposition of ban by way of Government Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-04, Education, dated 20.10.2004. Further, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the competent authority and the Grantin-Aid status was recommended by the High Level Committee constituted by the Government. The admission of Grant-in-Aid status for the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that there is a general ban on new Grant-in-Aid status as per the Government Memo.

¶49

However, admittedly, the case of the petitioner was approved much prior to the said Memo whereunder general ban was imposed. Further, in view of the Apex Court’s judgment stated supra, whereunder it was categorically held that administrative orders are prospectively effected and not retrospectively, the Government Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-04, Education, dated 20.10.2004, has no applicability to the case of the petitioner, and hence, the impugned Memo No.11188/PS-1/2005 dated 02.07.2005, is liable to be set aside.

¶50

Accordingly, the impugned Memo No. 11188/PS1/2005 dated 02.07.2005 is set aside and the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for admission of Grant-in-Aid status in accordance with law, and release the salary and consequential benefits attached to the post as per Grantin-Aid, as per rules, and since the writ petitioner had expired and the present petitioners are the Legal Representatives of the writ petitioner, the salary and other benefits may be released as per the rules and in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶53

15^th December, 2011

¶54

KSM

¶55

[1] (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 613

G.Gopal Rajaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Gopal Rajaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Julies Seezer Vs M. Papaiah

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

M/s.Modern Food Industrial (India) Limited, Ida Vs Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Smt. Yenduru Pydamma, Hindu, Female Vs M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited

Mudam Ramesh Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

G.S.P. Thyagaraj Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad