Disposed

Yathakuka Chandraiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer Tahsildar

Telangana HC4 Sept 2012WP/26040/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged non-recognition as a permanent Village Servant/Sethisindhi, alleging denial of rotational duty. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider continuing the petitioner as a Sethisindhi if a clear vacancy exists within thirty days, ensuring no dislocation of services for existing candidates.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer to consider permitting the petitioner to join duty as a Sethisindhi within 30 days if a clear vacancy exists, without disturbing the services of the APPSC

Yathakuka Chandraiah Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26040 OF 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition has been preferred seeking a Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to recognize the services of the petitioner as a permanent Village Servant of Kadaparthy Village, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶4

2. This is not the first occasion for this litigation. In an earlier round, W.P.No.18945 of 1996 was preferred by one Sri Yathakula Mallaiah. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.06.1998 directing the 2^nd respondent therein to consider the representation, dated 04.04.1996, submitted by the said Mallaiah in accordance with law and duly taking into account the instructions passed on by the State Government contained in their Memo No.91991/VOI/

¶5

92-5, dated 23.01.1996, if the said memorandum is still in operation and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner in that case. The present writ petitioner then preferred a Writ Appeal against the said Judgment by instituting W.A.No.1677 of 1998. That Writ Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.09.1998, directing the respondents, while taking a decision, to consider the case of the appellant,

¶6

Sri Yathakula Chandraiah, the present petitioner, also while considering the case of Sri Yathakula Mallaiah. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer, based upon the clarification furnished by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the instructions of the Collector, Nalgonda, conducted interviews on 10.11.1999. Both Sri Yathakula Mallaiah and Sri Yathakula Chandraiah, the present petitioner, were present and participated in the said interview. But, however, the performance of

¶7

Sri Yathakula Mallaiah was found to be better than that of the present petitioner. The Government Memo No.91991/VOI/92-5, dated

¶8

23.06.1996, made it clear that the policy of abolition of the Village Servant System is only applicable to ‘Watans’ held by Village Officers. But the same will not apply to ‘Sethisindhies’ and “Neeradees’. These instructions were, in turn, based upon a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.9292 of 1987, dated 05.12.1989. Since the Votabandi system was not abolished insofar as Sethisindhies are concerned, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nakrekal, passed an order on 10.12.1999, which reads as under:

¶9

“In view of the above, the better performance shown by Mallaiah than Chandraiah in the interview held on 10.11.1999, Sri Yathakula Mallaiah is appointed as Village Servant of Kadaparthy Village and Sri Yathakula Chandraiah is permitted to perform his duty as Sethisindhi as per his turn in rotation system which is in vogue. As and when the proceedings received by the Yathakula Mallaiah is eligible to draw the salary in his name accordingly. (Emphasis is laid)

¶10

Sd/- 10-12 Mandal Revenue Officer, Nakrekal.”

¶11

3. It is, therefore, clear from the above order that applying Votabandi system means working on rotation/turn basis. In other words, if one individual has performed the services for one year, the other individual will perform the services for the next year and so on.

¶12

4. It now transpired that Sri Yathakula Mallaiah was promoted as a Village Revenue Officer on 03.06.2008. Now the case of the petitioner is that in the post 03.06.2008 period, the petitioner is not permitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer to perform his duties and even if he performs the duties, he is not being paid the monthly honorarium for the said Sethisindhies (Village Servant).

¶13

5. The Tahsildar, Nakrekal Mandal, filed a detailed counter affidavit. He has admitted in his counter affidavit that both

¶14

Sri Yathakula Chandraiah and Sri Yathakula Mallaiah were appointed on rotational basis. In paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, it is asserted as under:

¶15

“…. After expiry of the period of appointment of Sri Yathakula Mallaiah, Sri Yathakula Chandraiah has to join duty as Village Servant of Kadaparthy Village on 01.10.1999 and continue for a period of one year i.e., upto 30.09.2000 on ‘Votabandi’ system, in place of Sri Yathakula Mallaiah. Like wise, these 2 persons have to discharge duties as Village Servants of Kadaparthy Village at the rate of one year each, on ‘Votabandi’ system. As per this office records, Sri Yathakula Mallaiah, who was appointed as Village Servant of Kadaparthy Village on 01.10.1998 has been paid monthly ‘honorarium’ till 03.06.2008, his date of appointment as Village Revenue Officer, on promotion. There is no record available on ground, permitting Sri Yathakula Chandraiah to perform duties as Village Servant of Kadaparthy Village.”

¶16

6. It was further stated in the counter affidavit in paragraph No.6 as under:

¶17

“In reply to Para 6 of the affidavit, it is submitted that Sri Yathakula Mallaiah S/o. Venkaiah has been paid ‘Honorarium’ continuously from 01.10.1998 to 03.06.2008, till his appointment as VRO, on promotion. There are only (2) posts of Village Servants for Kadaparthy Village. Another person, by name Y. Ramulu is already working, while the ‘dispute’ was for one post only. Since, there was a ‘ban’ on appointment of Village Servants, the vacancy that arose due to promotion of Sri Yathakula Mallaiah S/o. Venkaiah as Village Revenue Officer has not been notified and has not been filled up. Thus, there is no scope for payment of salary to the petitioner and recording of his attendance does not arise.”

¶18

7. However, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on receipt of instructions from the Tahsildar in this matter, stated that the second vacancy of the Village Servant has been notified through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) and after

¶19

conducting the written examination on 19.02.2012 for direct recruitment, Smt. D. Padma, D/o. Narsaiah, a candidate belonging to B.C. (General), was recruited as Village Revenue Assistant of Kadaparthy Village and hence, there is no scope for permitting the petitioner to perform duties of a Village Servant in the Village.

¶20

8. Today, Sri G. L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions, submits that as ill-luck would have it, Sri Y. Ramulu, the other Village Servant, has expired very recently and thus there is a clear vacancy of Village Servant in the Village and there is no difficulty for the Tahsildar, Nakrekal Mandal, to continue the petitioner as a Village Servant.

¶21

9. Taking all these aspects into consideration, I consider that it would be appropriate to direct the Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Nakrekal Mandal, to consider continuing the petitioner as a Sethisindhi by permitting him to join duty, thus giving effect to the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nakrekal Mandal, in his proceedings No.B/3795/98, dated .11.99, provided there is a clear vacancy for continuing the petitioner as such. Let an appropriate decision in this matter be taken within a maximum period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and it is abundantly made clear that this order will in no way result in either stopping or dislocating the services of the APPSC selected candidate Smt. D. Padma.

¶22

10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

11. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand disposed of.

¶24

________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶25

September 04, 2012 MD

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.26040 OF 2009

¶28

September 04, 2012

¶29

Yathakuka Chandraiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yathakuka Chandraiah v. The Mandal Revenue Officer Tahsildar

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

K.Rambabu Vs Govt of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

A.Krishnaiah Vs B.K.Raghava Reddy

S. Narsimhloo Vs Apsrtc., Rep by its Managing Director

E. Chinnaiah, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Kandula Nageswara Rao, S/o. Rama Krishna, Vs A.P. Transco

Lt.Vinay Tiwari (05649N) Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defense