The High Court dismissed four writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner not to recover erroneous pay differences from pensioners of the respondent under Article 226.)
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION Nos.2982, 13398, 13421 and 13489 OF 2011
COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
2. These Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed to call for the records relating to the common order, dated 13.08.2010, in O.A.Nos.4039 of 2007 with VMA No.517 of 2007, 4040 of 2007 with VMA No.515 of 2007, 4041 of 2007 with VMA No.509 of 2007 and 4804 of 2007 with VMA No.656 of 2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same.
3. Respondent No.1 herein in all these Writ Petitions filed the aforementioned Original Applications to declare the proceedings issued by the Director General, A.P.S.P.F., Secunderabad, on different dates in May, June and July, 2007 ordering for recovery of amount on account of alleged erroneous pay fixation consequent to their appointments in S.P.P-I, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the petitioners herein not to recover any amount from the pension and other retirement benefits from them.
4. The Tribunal, upon perusing the material on record and following the judgment in SAHIB RAM V. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[1] disposed of the Original Applications directing the petitioners herein not to recover any amount from pension and other retirement benefits of respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions in
pursuance of respective impugned proceedings issued by the petitioners herein.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners contended that though respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions are not eligible for promotion, they were sanctioned Special Promotion Post-I scale after completion of 16 years service; that in pursuance of Audit objection, the pay of respondents No.1 in all the Writ Petitions has been revised and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions contended that no tests are required to be passed for promotion by the Ministerial staff; that fixation of pay of respondent No.1 in the Writ Petitions can be said to be in accordance with the Rules and therefore, the Tribunal after considering the material on record, rightly disposed of the Original Applications and that order needs no interference by this Court.
7. As per G.O.Ms.No.87, Irrigation and C.A.D. (P.W.-ESTT.I) DEPT., dated 26.03.1993, employees, who are absorbed, are exempted from passing the Departmental Tests and training for initial absorption only and not for subsequent promotions.
8. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions completed 16 years of service in the cadre of Senior Assistant. As per G.O.Ms.No.87, dated 26.03.1993, unless the employee qualifies for promotion in all respects, he is not entitled to SPP Scale-I after completion of 16 years of service. Employees, who do not get one promotion, are given exemption from passing the departmental tests for the post promotion. It seems that when respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions have already got promotion as Senior Assistants, they are not entitled to exemption from passing the departmental tests. At the time of
extending Special Promotion Post Scale-I to respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions, the authority ought to have taken reasonable precaution to see that such scale is not extended to them for want of passing the departmental test. But, the competent authority extended the said benefit and allowed them to draw the difference of salary for considerable period without raising any objection. After objection raised by the Audit officials, petitioners herein realized their mistake and wanted to recover the amount from respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions. The impugned proceedings issued to respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions are with regard to recovery of certain amounts on the erroneous pay fixation consequent to their appointment in SPP-I Grade.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions contended that the issue with regard to passing of departmental tests for promotion is pending with the Government and the Government has not taken any decision as on today and therefore, there is no requirement of Rule to that effect that for getting promotion one has to pass the departmental test. However, if the employer is permitted, such promotee should pass the test before declaration of promotion in the promoted category as per Rule 15-a, 16-e and f of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996.
10. Insofar as fixation of pay in SPP-I Grade is concerned, it is not by a false representation or misrepresentation of the facts by any one of respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions. Petitioners herein on their own accord fixed the pay of respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions as SPP-I Grade. The Tribunal placed reliance on a decision reported in SAHIB RAM’s case ( 1 supra) wherein it was held thus:
“It is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the applicant that the benefit of higher pay scale was given to him, but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances, the amount paid till date may not be
recovered from the applicant.”
Following the said judgment, the Tribunal rightly allowed the Original Applications. We do not find any merit in these Writ Petitions and they are liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners herein in re-fixing the pay of respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions in accordance with the Rules after giving reasonable opportunity to them. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand cancelled.
___________ (ANIS,J)
JULY 04, 2014 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION Nos.2982, 13398, 13421 and 13489 OF 2011
DATE:04.07.2014
YVL
[1] 1994 (5) S.L.R.753
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order directing the petitioners not to recover erroneous pay difference from pensioners based on Sahib Ram needs to be set aside.
Whether respondents are required to pass departmental tests for special promotion when absorbed employees are exempted for initial absorption.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SAHIB RAM V. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [1]Followed¶16
1994 (5) S.L.R.753Referred
Director General, A.P.S.P.F.
Respondent No.1 in all Writ Petitions
K.C. BHANU
ANIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
