Dismissed

A. Ramanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Nov 2016WP/37199/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a former government employee challenging the Administrative Tribunal's rejection of his pay fixation claim as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action arose upon appointment in 1994 and accrued in full by 1997, rendering the 2016 application barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; the order of the Administrative Tribunal refusing relief on the ground of limitation and lack of merit is upheld.

A. Ramanaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.37199 of 2016

Between:

A. Ramanaiah

PETITIONER

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500 022 and others.

¶9

RESPONSENTS

¶10

VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.37199/2016

¶11

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.37199 of 2016

¶14

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶15

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the rejection of his application by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that it was time barred and did not even merit admission.

¶16

Heard Mr. K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper–cum-Night Watchman on 26.06.1993 in a time scale of the pay attached to the post. However, his services were terminated on account of return of salary bills by the Treasury Officer. Therefore he filed an application in O.A.No.5722 of 1993 and the same was allowed on 06.12.1993. He was reappointed pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in 1994 on a lower scale of pay. It appears that the petitioner started taking up the issue with the respondents from 1994.

¶18

In 1997 the petitioner was appointed by the method of transfer to the post of attendar on regular basis. After he was appointed as attendar, what was due to him in the post of attendar was given. Therefore he was satisfied with making representations for about 19 years and came up with an application in O.A.SR.No.6894 of 2016 before the Tribunal in the year 2016. The registry of the Tribunal raised objections to the maintainability of the O.A on the ground of limitation. The objection was sustained by the Tribunal forcing the petitioner to come up before us.

¶19

We do not think that the Tribunal could have done anything else. Admittedly, the only claim of the petitioner is for regularizing his pay in the appropriate time scale for the period from 1994 up to November, 1997. But he came up with an application before the Tribunal in 2016, It is not as

¶20

VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.37199/2016

¶21

¶22

though the applicant was not aware of his rights. When he was terminated in 1993 he was able to file an application before the Tribunal in O.A.No.5722 of 1993. Therefore, the Original Application filed in relation to the wrong pay fixation for the period from 1994 to 1997, especially after a period of 19 years, was actually barred by time.

¶23

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pay fixation is a continuing cause of action. Therefore, the question of limitation, as prescribed by Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, cannot apply.

¶24

But we do not agree. The cause of action with regard to wrong pay fixation arose in 1994. The moment the petitioner was appointed by the method of transfer to a higher post in November, 1997, that cause of action came to an end. Therefore, the application was really barred by time and the Tribunal took the correct view. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

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

¶26

_____________________________ JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶27

_________________________ JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

1^st November, 2016 Js.

¶29

VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.37199/2016

¶30

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.37199 of 2016

¶33

Js.

¶34

Date: 01-11-2016

A. Ramanaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Ramanaiah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banoth Balu, Vs The Deputy Director of Tribal Welfare

Ruttala Swathi Vs The State of Telengana

Sri. Penumuru Jayaramaiah, Vs The Union Bank of India

Gaddam Satish Babu Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager

M. Gandhi, Vs The Bank Manager

Shaik Abdul Jaleel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh