Court allowed the writ petition enforcement of a final Tribunal order relating to service regularisation, directing authorities to implement the direction within six weeks.
Directing respondent authorities to give effect to and implement the order dated 27.10.2011 passed by the Tribunal within six weeks.
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 JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO
WRI T PETI TI ON No.30605 OF 2018
ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)
The petitioners are the applicants in O.A.No.8364 of 2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was allowed by order dated 27.10.2011. Thereby, the Tribunal directed the respondents in the O.A. to regularise the services of the petitionersapplicants with effect from 25.11.1993. They were however held entitled to only notional fixation of pay and not arrears of pay.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, State of Andhra Pradesh, does not dispute the fact that the aforestated order dated 27.10.2011 has attained finality as no writ petition was filed thereagainst before this Court by the authorities, the respondents in the O.A.
That being so, we are not willing to accede to his request to grant time to file a counter in this writ petition. Having allowed the order passed by the Tribunal to attain finality, it is not open to the respondent authorities to lay a challenge to the validity of the said order in the present writ petition whereby the petitioners-applicants seek implementation thereof. Be it noted that merely because the petitionersapplicants did not choose to initiate contempt proceedings before the Tribunal in relation to the aforestated order within the stipulated time, it does not have the effect of nullifying the order. Such failure on their part would only afford immunity to the respondent authorities from any action being initiated against them under contempt jurisdiction and no more. It
2
does not have the effect of invalidating the order to the extent that the authorities can state with impunity that they need not abide thereby.
It may also be noted that historically a writ of scire facias was hitherto available in English Jurisprudence to implement an earlier writ. There is no reason why this Court should not adopt the same principle as the order passed by the Tribunal, which has attained finality, would not fade away into oblivion merely because of passage of time and it would be as binding upon the respondents as an order of recent origin.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondent authorities to give effect to and implement the order dated 27.10.2011 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.8364 of 2011. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.
_________________
_________________
Date: 25.10.2018 IBL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a final order of the Tribunal granting relief can be implemented via writ petition contempt proceedings to avoid.
Whether the lapse of time renders the binding force of the Tribunal order unenforceable.
The Petitioners-Applicants
The Respondent Authorities
Sanjay Kumar
M. Ganga Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
