Partly allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its v. Dr.T. Murali Krishna

Telangana HC24 Nov 2015WP/22462/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by the Government against the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It held that the employee's seniority status was pending before the Tribunal. The Court set aside the Tribunal order, directed the Government to issue posting orders at Anantapur, and left the question of the employee's rank to the Government.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Tribunal order and directed the Government to issue posting orders to the employee to work as a Doctor at Anantapur.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.22462 of 2014

¶3

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah)

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed by the Government aggrieved by the order dt:12.07.2012 in O.A.No.2664 of 2012 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “A.P.A.T”), Hyderabad wherein the A.P.A.T. allowed the batch of O.As namely O.A.Nos. 2664, 2665 and 2899 of 2012. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, it is aggrieved by the order dt:12.07.2012 in O.A.No.2664 of 2012.

¶5

2) In the impugned order, the learned Tribunal allowed O.A.No.2664 of 2012 in respect of the applicant who was working as Associate Professor as on that date in General Surgery at Government Medical College, Ananthapur and set aside the postings issued in G.O. Rt.No.518 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A-1) Department dt:31.03.2012.

¶6

3) Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed the present writ petition.

¶7

4) Along with the writ petition, the Government also filed W.P.M.P.No.28170 of 2014 seeking interim suspension of the impugned order pending the writ petition. This Court while ordering Rule Nisi in the writ petition by order

¶8

dt:07.08.2014, granted the interim suspension as prayed for. Aggrieved, the respondent/ employee filed the vacate stay petition i.e, W.V.M.P.No.2801 of 2014. The matter is taken up for hearing as an urgent matter on the ground that though the 1^st respondent is working as a Doctor, he is not given the posting orders so far to work at any place. In that view of the matter, both the Counsels have requested this Court to dispose of the writ petition itself instead of confining the order to be passed only in the vacate stay petition. That is how, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition.

¶9

5) The facts which are not in dispute are, at the relevant point of time, the 1^st respondent/employee was working as Professor. While-so vide G.O.Rt.No.518 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (A-1) Department dt:31.03.2012, the 1^st respondent was transferred. Questioning the same, the 1^st respondent filed O.A.No.2664 of 2012 and the said O.A was allowed on 12.07.2012. While-so, aggrieved by the same, the Government filed the writ petition and obtained interim suspension. In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.63 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (A1) department dt:10.01.2013 posting the petitioner as Professor in Kurnool Medical College. The Government issued memo No.7175/A1/2012 dt:10.01.2013 posting the 1^st respondent to work on duty at Government Medical

¶10

College/ Government General Hospital, Anantapur. According to the 1^st respondent/employee, he reported to the duty. While-so, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.65 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dt:02.04.2013, reverting the 1^st respondent/employee from the post of Professor to Associate Professor consequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Seniority. Questioning the same, the 1^st respondent/employee filed O.A.No.2588 of 2014 before the A.P Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Learned Tribunal by order dt:01.04.2015 suspended the impugned G.O.Ms.No.65 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A1) Department dt: 02.04.2014 and the said O.A is pending and the interim suspension is subsisting.

¶11

6) The contention of the learned counsel for 1^st respondent/ employee is that though the employee was deemed to have been working as Professor, he is neither allowed to report for duty at Kurnool nor at Anantapur. The learned Government Pleader would submit that by virtue of the order of the Government dt:10.01.2013 wherein at which point of time the 1^st respondent, who was working as Assistant Professor should report for the duty. Though the counsel for 1^st respondent/employee would submit that he reported to the duty but on asking by this Court, the learned counsel for 1^st respondent would submit that the Government has not given any posting orders so far.

¶12

Therefore, he is nowhere.

¶13

7) Taking into consideration the above aspect, we are of the view that the position of the 1^st respondent i.e, either he should be continued as Associate Professor or Professor is a matter pending before the Tribunal. The respondent/employee is inclined to serve the department by reporting to duty at Anantapur, Medical College. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and consequently by directing the Government to consider the case of the 1^st respondent/employee for issuing the posting orders so as to enable him to work as Doctor. Sofaras the position of 1^st respondent/employee that whether he needs to be continued as Associate Professor or Professor is concerned, we are not inclined to say anything about the same and it is for the Government to consider it by taking into consideration the interim direction granted by the Tribunal.

¶14

7) With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

__________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J

¶17

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶18

Dt: 24.11.2015 scs

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its v. Dr.T. Murali Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its v. Dr.T. Murali Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Under Secretary to the Govt. of Inida Vs Y. Sahab Saran

The District Collector, Vs Sri C. Vijaya Rao, Vao (under suspension)

The Administrator-cum-Chief Engineer, Vs B. Bhaskar

The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P., Vs S. Rajasekhara Reddy

The Chief Executive Officer, Vs P. Shivarama Krishna Prasad

A. Sudarshana Goud, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer