It was held that the petitioner authorities acted irregularly by dismissing the petitioner without issuing posting orders to the second respondent's unit. The Tribunal correctly directed payment of salary arrears during the intervening period of delay.
The Writ Petition and consequential miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No. 1936 OF 2013 .
DATED 28TH JANUARY, 2013.
BETWEEN
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and anr.
And
K. Krishna Rao and ors
….Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR
WRIT PETITION No. 1936 OF 2013 .
ORDER: ( per AM.J)
This Writ Petition is filed impugning the order dated 26.11.2012 passed in OA.No. 8497 of 2010 and CA.No. 884 of 2012 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide which, the petitioners were directed to make
payment of arrears of salary to the first respondent in respect of the period from 29.2.2008 to 30.12.2009 as per his pay particulars within a time frame.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, consequent upon the winding up of the Labour Welfare Centre, Vijayawada, which was under the control of the Labour Department, the first respondent who had been by then working as an Adult Education Teacher therein, was re-deployed to the unit of the second respondent-District Educational Officer, Machilipatnam, and accordingly, he was relieved by the petitioner authorities on 29.2.2008; however, he was absorbed as a SGT with effect from 30.12.2009, i.e. nearly after twenty two months. The first respondent claiming arrears of salary for the intervening period from 29.2.2008 to 30.12.2009, i.e. from the date of his relieving from the post held by him which was under the control of the petitioner authorities, till the date of his absorption as a SGT in the unit of the second respondent-DEO, made a representation to the second and third respondents, and as there was no response from the authorities of the Education as well as Labour Departments, he had to approach the Tribunal by way of OA.No. 8497 of 2010, which was disposed of by the order impugned in the Writ Petition directing the petitioner authorities to make the payment of arrears of salary to the first respondent as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner authorities have knocked on the doors of this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner authorities submitted that inasmuch as the first
respondent was relieved on 29.2.2008 as per the instructions of the District Employment Officer, Vijayawada, it is for the 2nd and 3rd respondent authorities to pay the arrears of salary to the first respondent, who was absorbed as a SGT on 30.12.2009. He further submitted that after relieving the first respondent from the post of Adult Education Teacher on 29.2.2008, he never approached the petitioner authorities for payment of salary and therefore, they were not aware of the actual status of the first respondent till the date of his absorption in the unit of the second respondent. He further asserted that as the LPC and service register were already transmitted to the place where the first respondent was working, the first respondent cannot lay his claim for arrears of salary before the petitioners.
Perused the case file.
It is manifest from the record that consequent upon the winding up of the Welfare Centers working under the control of the petitioners –Labour Department, the first respondent who was by then working as an Adult Education Teacher in one of such Welfare Centre at Vijayawada, was proposed to be surrendered to the third respondent and after some internal correspondence that took place at that point of time, the third respondent directed the District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Vijayawada, under proceedings dated 28.1.2008 to take steps for accommodating the first respondent in a suitable post, upon which, the District Employment Officer through his letter dated 6.2.2008 requested the second respondent-District Educational Officer to accommodate the first respondent as a Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) on
permanent basis and issue necessary re-deployment orders while intimating the date of joining of the first respondent to the petitioner authorities and call for the LPC and SR from them in order to take further steps in that regard. However, before the second respondent- District Educational Officer took necessary steps pursuant to the letter of the District Employment Officer, dated 6.2.2008, the petitioner authorities vide their proceedings dated 29.2.2008 had already relived the first respondent on the same day and directed him to report to duty at the new station, i.e. before the second respondent.
Responding to the said proceedings, the second respondent vide his proceedings dated 27.3.2008 informed the petitioner authorities that the first respondent had been relieved even before issuing the posting orders by the second respondent and that the petitioner authorities were requested to furnish the particulars of the first respondent mentioned therein so as to enable the second respondent to forward the same to the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and obtain orders therefor. In the meanwhile the second respondent requested the petitioner authorities to cancel the relieving orders in order to avoid any future legal complications.
Taking note of the above factual scenario into account, the Tribunal rightly held that the action of the petitioner authorities in relieving the first respondent even before posting orders were issued by the second respondent is irregular. Further, it is reflected from the record that the petitioner authorities simply issued the orders and relieved the first respondent while retaining the LPC, Service register etc at their end for the reasons best known to them which are undisclosed
herein.
Be that as it may, the petitioner authorities through proceedings dated 1.4.2008 transmitted the necessary particulars of the first respondent simply to the second respondent, by quoting the letter dated 27.3.2008 of the second respondent in the reference column. It is clear that in the said letter the petitioner authorities failed to respond to the request made by the second respondent seeking cancellation of the relieving orders for the present. On receipt of the said proceedings, the second respondent through his letter dated 13.8.2008 intimated the petitioner authorities his intention to absorb the first respondent in the post of SGT subject to certain conditions as mentioned therein and accordingly requested the petitioner authorities to relieve the first respondent with instructions to report before the second respondent for posting orders duly producing all the testimonials in original for verification. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner authorities through the proceedings dated 17.8.2008, conveniently without referring to the earlier proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.3.2008 intimated that the first respondent was already relieved from his duties on the AN of 29.2.2008.
However, on receipt of the proceedings dated 13.8.2008 of the second respondent, the first respondent reported to duty on 10.12.2009, upon which, the third respondents issued orders dated 30.12.2009 absorbing the first respondent as a SGT. At this juncture, a perusal of the material placed before this Court reflects that after being relieved by the petitioner
authorities on 29.2.2008, neither the first respondent reported before the second respondent pursuant to the said proceedings nor the second respondent upon receipt of the letter dated 29.2.2008 a copy of which was marked to him, directed the first respondent to report before him. As the petitioner authorities relieved the first respondent on 29.2.2008 even before any posting orders being issued by the second respondent, the second respondent requested the petitioner authorities through proceedings dt. 27.3.2008 to cancel the said relieving orders while seeking them to furnish the service particulars of the first respondent mentioned therein. Thereupon, the petitioner authorities without responding to the request of the second respondent to cancel the relieving orders of the first respondent in order to avoid any future legal complications, simply furnished the service particulars of the first respondent through their proceedings dated 1.4.2008. It is thus abundantly clear from the record that the petitioner authorities had relieved the first respondent, even before the second respondent issued the posting orders to the first respondent and that the LPC, SR etc., were retained in the custody of the petitioner authorities till the same were asked by the Mandal Educational Officer, Mandal Parishad, Pamarru, under his letter dated 31.12.2009 while allowing the first respondent to report before him basing on the proceedings dated 30.12.2009 issued by the second respondent. It is further reflected from the record that the petitioner authorities utterly failed to respond to the request of the second respondent to cancel the relieving orders dated 29.12.2008 issued to the first respondent as his particulars are to be received from the petitioner authorities and the same are to be submitted to the Director of School Education, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad for obtaining necessary orders in the matter. The factual scenario thus obtaining in the matter clearly goes to show that the petitioner authorities are at fault in relieving the first respondent while keeping with them LPC, SR and without any posting orders for the first respondent from the second respondent. In this backdrop of the case, the Tribunal had considered the matter in the proper perspective and rightly allowed the OA filed by the first respondent under the impugned order which does not call for interference by us in this Writ Petition.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, which is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any shall stand dismissed in the consequence of this final order. There shall be no order as to costs.
-------------------------------------JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR
Dated 28TH JANUARY, 2013. Msnro
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in directing the petitioner authorities to pay arrears of salary to a teacher relieved before post absorption orders were issued.
Whether the delay in absorption and retention of service records by the petitioner authorities warrants payment of interim dues.
Whether irregularities in relief orders justify dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's award of salary arrears.
Government of Andhra Pradesh
K. Krishna Rao
Ashutosh Mohanta
N. Ravi Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
