Allowed

M.R. Reddy, Medak District v. the Chief Executive Officer, Medak District and 2 Others

Telangana HC25 Jul 2022WP/26461/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition seeking regularization of pension and annual grade increments for a retired school assistant. It held that an employee with satisfactory regularized service is entitled to increments regardless of initial qualification gaps.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to release annual grade increments and fix pension accordingly.

M.R. Reddy, Medak District Vs the Chief… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO:26461 OF 2008

¶5

Between:

¶6

M.R. Reddy, S/o. Bal Reddy, Retired School Assistant, R/o. Zaheerabad Village & Mandal, Medak District.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

'1. The Chief Executive Otficr-t, Zilla Parishad, Medak Diskict At Sanga Reddy

¶10

The District Educational Officer, Medak District at Sanga Reddy

¶11

The Accountant General (A & E),, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Certiorari' calling for the records relating to the order passed in O.A.No.10760 of 2020 daled 28-02-2006 including the order passed in Rev.M.A.No. 322312007 in OA No. 1076012002 dated 9-10-2007 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal and set aside the same as unjust and contrary to law and consequently direct the Ist and 2nd respondents to treat the petitioner as regularly appointed as School Assistant for all^purposes including^granting'of the annual grade increments, regularizing the leave period in pursuant to the regularization proceedigns No. B1/1299/1973 dated 09-5-1973 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently release all the annual grade increments to the petitioner in the cadre of School Assistant sicence the date of his appointment and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to fix the pension of the petitioner as regularly retired School Assistant with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. 18-5-2002 in the interest of^justice.

¶14

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(I^IPMP. NO: 34633 OF 2008)

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ;um,;tances stated in the affidavit filed r support of the petition, the High Courl nray be pleased to direct the responden s to treat the petitioner as regular Schoc Lr\ss stant for grant of pension duly givir g the benefit of increments from the dale of his increments from the date of hi , appointment as School Assistant i.e 22-1 1-1969 till his retirement i.e. 18-5.2002 in the cadre of School Assislant cn par with other regular School Assis ants

¶16

Counsel for the Petit oner: SRl. D RAMAKRISHNA

¶17

Counsel for the Resl^,ondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the ollowing: ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶22

Writ Petition No.26461 of 2OO8

¶23

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shauiti)

¶24

This Writ Petition is liled by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a Wit of Certiorari by calling lor the records relating to Order passed in O.A.No. 10760 of 2OO2, dated 1n 28.02.2006 including the Order passed Rev.M.A.No.3223 of 2OO7 in O.A.No.10760 of 2OO2, dated 09.LO.2OO7 by the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and set aside the sarne as unjust and contrary to law; to direct respondent Nos.l and 2 to treat the petitioner herein as regularly appointed 'School Assistant' lor all purposes including granting of Annual Grade Increment, regularizing the leave period in pursuant to the regularization proceedings No.B1/1299/ 1973, dated 09.05.1973, issued by the 1"t respondent and consequently release all the Annual Grade Increments to the petitioner in

¶25

/!.KS,.r & NVSK,J ,1 2( 461 2OO8

¶26

¶27

the cadre r f 'School Assistant' since t.ht: c a te of his 3'd appointmer t; and consequently direct th: respondent to ljx the pension of petitior.:.er as relglarly relir-r:d 'Sct ool Assistant' with effect from ttr,-' clate of his retiremr nt, i.e., 18.O5.2OO2.

¶28

Heard Mr. D. Ramakrishna, learnecl < ounsel for thr: petitior :r, and the learned Governnrenr- ['lea,ler for

¶29

Services-I, or the respondents.

¶30

Learn, d counsel for the petitioner contendt:d that petitioner rerein was initially appointed a:; 'School Assistalt' with the respondent-Depar-.r--ner,t on 22.11.196!; though petitioner was nol having the rsrquisite lualilication of B.Ed., the r()sipondents appointed rim as 'School Assistant' l;asec upon his clualificatio r in B.Sc. (M.P.C.); after :er.dering considerab e length of service, the respon,lr..nts \vef e pleased to regularize the services of petitioner u,.e.f. 22.It.19(1. vide proceedings dated C!).05,. i973; thereafter. petitioner retired from seri,:e u,.c.I 18.05.2001 u,ithout any complaints from .1^-r.i' (luarter;

¶31

¶32

AKs,] & NV5K,J wp_2646r_2oo6

¶33

::3::

¶34

¶35

though the services of petitioner were regularized vide proceedings dated 09.05.1973 from the date ol his initial appointment, i.e.,22.1 1.1969, the respondents have not extended the beneht of 'Annual Grade Increment'; as a result, petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondents, but the respondents rejected the case of petitioner lor grant of 'Annua,l Grade Increment'.

¶36

Questioning^{the same, petitioner preferredO.A.} before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, being O.A.No. 10760 of 2OO2.

¶37

The learned Tribunal vide order dated 2B.O2.2OOO was pleased to dismiss the O.A.No.10760 of 2OO2 on the ground that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of B.Ed., and the rule on which the petitioner was relying upon seeking exemption o[ passing the requisite qualification on the ground that petitioner has attained (45) yea-rs, would not come to the rescue of petitioner as the essential qualification cannot be relaxed as per the Rules.

¶38

AK5,./ & NV5K,J \tp_26461_2OO8

¶39

¶40

Dissa isfied, petitioner preferred rer ir'w under Section 2', (3lD of the Administrative Tritu.nals Act, 19U5 befr re the Andhra Pradesh Aclrninil;trative Tribunal, Hyderabad 1n Rev.M.A.No. 3223,t 2OO7 1n O.A.No. 1O' 60 of 2OO2 praying to reuieut the^ju<lgment of ttre Hon cie Tribunal in O.A.No.lO760 of 1lCt02. dated 28.O2.2OO:, on the ground that the basic cr.:.ali:ication to l'rold S.( .B.'1. post is Bacherlor's Degree.

¶41

Learr ed counsel for the petitionet' further contended that, admittedly, petitioner ]S having Bacherlor', Degree in M.P.C., i.e., B.Sc. (I\1.P.().), and orlcc thc services of petitioner Wi::f( rt:gularized, petitioner vould be entitled for grant of 'Ar:n.ua[ Grade Increment ; therefore, without appreciatir g, the said contentior', the learned Tribunal has also dis;missed tLtt: reuieu. apgrlication vide order dated 09.1Ct.2(tO7.

¶42

Aggrr -'verl, petitioner filed the prer:ient Writ Pet ition.

¶43

Learr ed counsel for the petitioner conlr:'nced that tht' learnr d l'ribunal erred in dismissin5 tht: above

¶44

::5:: AKS,J & NVSK,] wP_26461_2O06

¶45

O.A. without appreciating the fact that services of the petitioner were already regularized way back in 1973 vide proceedings dated 09.05.1973 w.e.f. 22.1L.1969, and once the services of an employee are regularized then the employee is entitled to be granted 'Annual Grade Increment'for the satisfactory service rendered. Admittedly, in the instant case, petitioner has rendered satisfactory service and had retired from service without any complaint from any quarter; therefore, it must be presumed that petitioner has rendered satislactory service and he is entitled for grant ol 'Annual Grade Increment'; but the respondents have Iixed the pension of the petitioner without extending the benefit of 'Annual Grade Increment', and the respondents are giving minimum pension to the petitioner without adding up the Annual Grade lncrements lor the entire sewice which the petitioner has rendered from 22.11.1969 up to the date of retirement, i.c., 18.05.2O02; and ,therefore, prayed this Court to direct the respondents to grant Annual Grade Increments lor the services which the petitioner has

¶46

::6:: AKS,J & NVSK,J vr'p_26461_2OO8

¶47

! I I I I I

¶48

rendere( ,:ls 'school Assistant' and also 1o re-f,rx the pensioni ry benefits by duly taking into rrccount the Annual Grade Increments to which tht: ltetitioner herein i-. entitled.

¶49

On thr: other hand, learned counr;el for the respondt nts contended that petitioner has nc,t passed the rec uisite qualification of B.Dd and the respondc rts have rightly denied the benelt o1''Annual Grade In:rement'; several opportunil.ies rr'cre given to thc petit oner to acquire the minimum clualilication while her rv:Ls serwing, but the petitior rr:r has not zrcquired^'equisite qualification of B.Ed.. ae,:1 therefore, the learn:d Tribunal was justified in dis;nrissing the above O.l .t and there are no merits in the t,rit Petition and the s. trne is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

This Court, having considered thr: rival sutrmissir rs ,t[ both parties, is ol the con;i,1ered view that oncc he services of the petitioner werr tegtlarized u,.e.f.22. 1.1969 vide proceedings dzrted l!).0S.1973, tht: petiti.'ner urould be entitled to the benelit ol

¶51

AKS,J & NV5K,J wP 26461 2006

¶52

\ \

¶53

'Annual Grade Increment'. Admittedly, petitioner herein has rendered satisfactory service and retired from service. When the petitioner was in service, the respondents have never issued any proceedings to the effect that petitioner's services were 'not satisfactory' When an employee renders one fu1l year of satisfactory service, then such an employee is entitled for 'Annual Grade Increment'.

¶54

L2. Admittedly, in the instant case, from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner till his retirement no complaints were made against the petitioner. This, itself makes it clear that services of petitioner were 'satisfactory' thereby making the petitioner eligible for gralt of 'Annual Grade Increment'. Therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the O.A., and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside.

¶55

The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are clirected to release the 'Annua-l Grade Increment' in favour of petitioner from the date of his initia-l

¶56

¶57

tl I.KS,J & NVSK,J w, 26451 2OO8

¶58

appointn ent till he retired on attaininll thr: age of superanr uation with all consequential llt:nefits, and also to h< the pension based upon the'Annua,l Grade Incremer t' and pass appropriate orders wittrin a period of two (01 ) months from the date of rr-'ceip: of a copy of this order . No costs

¶59

As sequel, miscellaleous applications pending if any in t ris Writ Petition, shall stand closs,:I.

¶60

i/TRUE COPY'

¶61

SD/-KSHYLESHI DI:PTITY REGISTRAR ,l SECTION OFFICER

¶62

To,

¶63

The Chief E; ecutive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Medak Dist'ict at Sanga Reddy

¶64

The District I ducational Officer, Medak Diskict al Sang r tleddy

¶65

The Accounl rnt General (A & E), Telangana, HyderabaJ^.500 004.

¶66

One CC to { Rl. D RAMAKRISHNA Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to 3P FORSERVICES-I ,High Courtforthe Statecf Telangana at Hyderabad. | )UTl

¶68

Two CD Cop es

¶69

One Spare C:py LAK SBw

\ .r

HIGH COUR T

DATED:25107t2022

ORDER

-\ o
: ..
:
t1 [':i' ?t1l
....,,

¶75

WP.No.2646l of 2008

¶76

WP !S ALLCIWED WITHOUT COSTSi

¶77

eA qccQ .<"l5\ )'-'

M.R. Reddy, Medak District v. the Chief Executive Officer, Medak District and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R. Reddy, Medak District v. the Chief Executive Officer, Medak District and 2 Others

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

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs A.P. Rao, S/o. A.V. Rao

V. Laxmana Chary, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Ananth Reddi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Narasimhulu and 9 Others Vs G.R. Chalapathi Rao and 5 Others

M.Latha D/o M.Balaraju Vs The State of Telangana

M. Chenna Reddy, Hyd Vs the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karimnagar Andano