Disposed

Sandamma Gangaram v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/35698/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension of a Field Assistant under MGNREGS. The Court held that the issue was covered by a previous common order and directed the petitioners to submit explanations to show-cause notices.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit explanations to suspension orders within two weeks; respondents to consider cases and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Sandamma Gangaram Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR^SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 35698 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sandamma Gan qaram, S/o Sri lstarr Aged about 42 years, Occ: Field Assistant R/o Chakriyal viliage, Pulkal Mandal,^-Sanga Reddy district^{(ErstwhileMedak} district)

¶8

..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its^{Principal Secretary, Department of} Panchayat Raj andRural Deveiopment,^{Secretariat Buildings'Hyderabad.}

¶11

The Commissioner, Panchayath Raj and^{Rural Development State of Telangana,} at Hyderabad.

¶12

J. The'District Collector and District Programme^{Co-OrdinatorIUGNREGS, T.S.} Sanga Reddy District.

¶13

Thebistrict Rural Development Officer and^{Ex-Officio JointSecretary of District} Rural Development, IVGNREGS-TS^{District Rural Development Agency (lt/lA)} Sanoa Reddv Sanoa Reddv district..

¶14

E Thei/andal Farish"d Devel6pment Officer,^{Mandal Praja Parishad, Pulkal} Mandal, Sanga Reddy district.

¶15

6 The Assistant Project'Director,^{Pulkal I/andal SangaReddy,,.11arrOOa*r,}

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of} WRIT OF IUANDAMUS declaring the^{proceedingsNo. No.1888/H.R/2020dated} 13t3t2O2O of the 4th respondent in suspending^{the petitionerfrom serviceas Field} Assistant of chakriyal village, Pulkal^{Mandal sangaReddy District underthe} IvGNREGS is illegal, arbitrary, and^{violationof the Fundamental RightsGuaranteed} Under the Constitution of lndia and^{set aside the same and consequently directthe} respondents to continue the^{petitioner as Field Assistant with all attendant benefits.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 oF 202',1

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} Suspend the operation of the^{proceedingsNo.'1888/H .R12020daled 131312020 of the} 4th respondent by directing the respondents to continue^{the petitioneras Field} Assistant of Chakriyal village, Pulkal Mandal^{Sanga Reddy District alongwith} pending salary paying to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ^petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. P' PADMA RAO}

¶20

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents^{1 & 2: GPFOR PANCHAYAT RAJ4RURALDEV}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents^{3 & 5: SRl.M. RAMGOPAL RAO}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents^{4 & 6: SMT PADMA REKHA} SC FOR DRDA

¶24

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KI.JMAR SHAVILI

¶26

W. P.No.35 698 of 2021

¶27

-O_eDEBr

¶28

When the matter is taken up lor hearing, learned counsel on cithcr side have lairly conceded that the issue raised in^{this writ} pelition is squarelv covered by the order passed by this Courtⁱⁿ V.P.No.15l84 of 2021, & batch, dated 02.72.2021. ar.d contended th at the presenl writ petition be disposed of in terms of^{the said} order.

¶29

In vicw of the above submissi<-rns, following the^{order dated} 02."12.2021 in V.P.No.15 184 of 2021 & batch and^{for reasons alike,} this rvrit pctition is also disposcd of ir-r terms thereof' No^orderas to costs.

¶30

Pending miscellaneous petitions' if any, shall stand^closed.

¶31

SD/. I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' ri SECTION OFFICER

¶32

To,

¶33

The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and^{Rural Development,} State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶34

The Commissi-oner, Panchayath Raj and Rural Development State of^Telangana, at Hyderabad.

¶35

The bistrict Collector and District Programme Co-Ordinator^{MGNREGS, T.S.} Sanga Reddy District.

¶36

TheDistrict Rural Development Officer and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary^{of District} Rural Development, MGNREGS-TS District Rural Development^{Agency (MlA)} Sanga Reddy Sanga Reddy district.

¶37

br*

¶38

The Mandal Parishd Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Pulkal Mandal, Sanga Reddy district.

¶39

The Assistant Project Director, Pulkal Mandal Sanga Reddy Dist.

¶40

One CC to Sri. P. Padma Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

B. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶42

One CC to Sri. M. Ramgopal Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

10.One CC to SMT Padma Rekha, SC For DRDA [OPUC]

¶44

(Along with the Copy of Order Dated. 2.12.2021 in WP. No. 1 5184 of 2021 & batch)

¶45

1 1 . Two CD Copies

¶46

One Spare Copy rR/ b'C-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411212021

ORDER

WP.No.35698 of 2021

:.
l tlE s Ia 16
-)
/o
24lfii2M?
t?
,7
.'t

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶53

I
It

¶54

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No. 15184 15306 15308 15315 16372 16447 t7 164, 20927, 2095t, 21225. 22300. 26847 AND 27 47 2 0F 2027

¶55

COMMON ORDER:

¶56

These writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order as the issue raised in these writ petitior.rs is one and the same.

¶57

For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.15316 of 2021 are discussed hereunder:

¶58

a) W.P.No.15316 of 2021 is filed seeking the following relief: ".....1o issue any writ or order more pafiicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of 3'd respondent in issuing suspension proceedings against the respective petitioners in A3/10712020, dated 13.03.2020 and further continuing petitioners under suspension for the past 1 year 4 months without any wages as illegal, arbitlary, violative of principles of natural^justice, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the service conditions and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to work as Field Assistants in their respective places under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural En-rployment Guarantee Scheme with all consequential and incidental benefits such as backwages and seniority etc., and to pass and^pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circuu-rstances ol the c ase.

¶59

b) It has been contended by the petitioners that they wele recruited as Field Assistants with the respondents during the^{years 2006 and} 2007 and since then, they have been discharging their^{duties to the} best satisfaction of their superiors and every one concerned.

¶60

2 AKS.J W.P.No.l5l84 of 2021 & batch

¶61

Heard Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Sri G.V. Shivaji and Sri K. Veerabhadra Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶62

Counsel for the petitioners contended that though the petitioners were appointed as Field Assistants on contract basis initially for a period of one year, the same was extended from time to time based upon their performance. Counsel further contended that during the month of March,2020, upon a call being given by the Joint Action Committee protesting against the performance parameters lixed by the respondents, the petitioners have abstained from duties for a period of three days; that the said conduct of the petitioners was construed as misconduct by the respondents and the respondents placed the petitioners under suspen sion vicle proceedings dated 13.03.2020, and in some districts, the suspension orders were dated 16.03.2020. Counsel also contended that some petitioners in these writ petitions were placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 07.03.2020, 17.03.2020 and 18.03.2020. Counsel further contended that along with the suspension orders, show cause notices were also issued as to why suitabie action should not be initiated against the petitioners. Counsel also contended that in some of these writ petitions, except placing the petitioners under suspension, no show cause notices were issued. Counsel for the petitioners further contended that though the tenure of the contract of the petitioners was valid upto 30.06.2020, the respondents have never reviewed the impugned suspension orders and are continuing the petitioners under

¶63

AKS,J W.P.No.l5l84 of 2021 & hatch

¶64

¶65

suspension for a^{prolongedperiod without takingany further action in} pursuance of the suspension orders.

¶66

Counsel for the^{petitionershad further contendedthat the} renewal of the petitioners' contract^{will be madeon the previous} year's performance of the^{petitionersand that admittedly, in the} instant cases, when the contract^{was valid from March, 2020 to June'} 2020, the petitioners^{were not permittedto work as FietdAssistants,} therefore, perfbtmance of^{the petitionersfrom March,2020 to June,} 2020 cannot be taken^{into consideration lor renew.al of their contract} and let the respondents^{review the case ol the petitioners by duly} taking into account^{the performance of the petitionersfor the service} rendered by them^{upto March, 2020 and liberty be given to the} petitioners to submit their^{explanationto the show cause noticeand} thereupon, the^{respondentsshallconsiderthe explanation of the} petitioners and^{pass appropriate ordersin accordancewith law and} also direct the^{respondentsto renew the contract of the petitioners} based upon the^{performanceof the petitioners for the service rendered} by them upto^March,2020.

¶67

Government^{Pleader appearingfor the respondentshad} contended that^{the services of the earlier FieldAssistants is being} taken over by^{the Panchayat Secretariesand the tenure of the} petitioners, contract has^{cometo an end on 30.06.2020 and since the} petitioners have^{not submitted any explanation, the respondents have} not taken any^{actionagainst the petitioners'If ontythe petitioners} submit fresh explanation^{in pursuanceof the suspensionorders'the}

¶68

AKS.J W.P.No.l5l84 of^{2021& batch}

¶69

¶70

respondents would^{consider the casesof the petitioners afreshand} pass appropriate orders^{in accordancewith 1aw.}

¶71

7 . This Court, having^{consideredthe rivalsubmissions made by} learned counsel for^{the respectiveparties, is of the consideredview} that these writ^{petitionscan be disposed of directingthe petitioners to} submit explanations to^{the impugned show cause notice/suspension} orders within a^{perio<l of two weeks from the date of receiptof a copy} of this order. It^{is needlessto say that the petitionerswho received} show cause notice shall^{submit their explanationto the showcause} notice and the^{petitioners who received suspension orders alonesha11} submit their explanation to^{the suspension orders issued by the} respondents. Upon such^{explanationsbeing received,the respondents} shall consider the same^{andpass appropriate orders, in accordance} with law, within a^{reasonableperiod of time, preferablywithin eight} weeks thereafter. The respondents^{shail also considerthe cases of the} petitioners for extension of^{their contractbased upon the perfonnance} of the petitioners for the^{service renderedby them upto March, 2020'} 8. With the above directions,^{these writ petitionsare disposedo t-'} No order as to costs.

¶72

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, shall standclosed'}

¶73

ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI,^J

¶74

02-12-2021

Sandamma Gangaram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandamma Gangaram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Ramesh Vs The District Collector,(Sw)

K. Subadra Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

V.Shruthi Vs The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor

Kalyani Kumari Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Ganta Swapna Vs Dr.B.Janaradhan Reddy and Another

G. Raju Vs Smt. Sucharitha