Remanded

K. Damodarnath, Mbnr Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Education Dept. and 3 Ors.

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022WP/33171/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a non-speaking order of the Administrative Tribunal that rejected the petitioner's regularization petition. The Court held the rejection lacked reasons being submitted despite examination and directed the respondents to re-examine the petitioner's case afresh, recording reasons, and pass appropriate orders within a specified period.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to re-examine the petitioner's case afresh, record reasons, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of this order.

K. Damodarnath, Mbnr Dist. Vs Prl. Secy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 33171 OF 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

K. DAMODARNATH, S/o. Late K. Rajaiah, Ex-part Time Vocational Junior Lecturer, Government RID Junior Colege, Kollapur R/o. Kollapur, Mahabubnagar District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Principal Secretary, Education Department, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of lntermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Principal, Government RID Junior College, Kollapur, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

The Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the impugned Memo No.282511E.11A212006-1, dated 25.03.2006 of the 1st respondent, and quash the same by holding it as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair and contrary to the orders al Para-4 of G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 01.10.1994 apart from violation of Constitutional Provisions, and by declaring the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 18.09.2009 in O.A.No.245412006 is erroneous and consequently direct the respondents to^pay the arrears of difference^payment of salary to the^petitioner calculating on the basis of minimum scale of^pay attached to the^post of Junior Lecturer^(Vocational) from the academic^year

¶16

I I

¶17

1992-1993 as was done in case of other similarly situated persons and salary for the month of February, 2003.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010^(WP MP. NO: 42108 OF 2010)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of difference payment of salary to the petitioner calculating on the basis of minimum scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Lecturer (Vocational) from the academic year 1992-1993 as was done in case of other similarly situated persons and salary for the month of February, 2003 by suspending the operation of the impugned [Vlemo No.2B25l1E.1/4212006-1 , dated 25.03.2006 of the 1 st respondent and the orders of the Hon'ble A. P. Administrative Tribunal dated 18.09.2009 in O.A.No.245412006, pending of the main writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C SAI REDDY

¶21

Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

1 AKS,J & RRNJ WP No.33171 of²⁰¹⁰

¶24

i i

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.33171 of 2OLO

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Administrativc Tribunal in O.A.No.2454 of 2006 dt. 18.09.2009. 2. Heard Sri Sai Reddy, learned counsei for the petitioner, and Government Pleader for Serviccs- I appea.ring for the respondents.

¶31

It has been contended by the petitioner that he had rendered' ser-vice as part-time Vocational .Junior Lecturer with respondents during the period from 1992 to 2003 and the petitioner was entitled to be gralted reguiar pay scale as per the G.O.Ms.No.352 dated 01.10.1994. But, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner of Intermediate trducation vide proceedings dated 04-04-2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner hled O.A. No.2454 of 2006 before the Administrative Tribuna,l, and Administrative Tribunal vide orders dt.18.09.2009 was pleased to

¶32

¶33

AKS,I & RRN,J WP No.33171of 2010

¶34

dismiss the O.A. that the petitioner is seeking regularization of the seIv1ces.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner IS seeking only minimum time pay scale in terms of G.O.Ms.No.352, dt.O1.10.1994 artd the sarne pay was extended to several other persons vide proceedings dated 15.03.2003 but when it came to the case of the petitioner, the respondents have rejected vide procer:dings dated 04.O4.2006, therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition directing the respondents to reexamine the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordalce with the G.O.Ms.No.352, dt.O1.10.1994.

¶36

The Government Pleader appearing for respondents has contended that the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and the sarne was rejected by way ol detailed speaking order dt.25-03-2006 and the Tribuna-l was justified in dismissing the O.A. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liablc to be dismissr:d.

¶37

AKS,J & RRN,I ' WP No.33171 of 2010

i I

I I !

I I

Having considered the rival submissions made by both parties, this Court is of the considered view that respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his case with no reasons and perusal of the rejection order discloses that the case was examined by the Government and the Government has rejected the case of the petitioner. Except stating this, no further detailed reasons a-re assigned.

¶44

Thereforc this Court is ol the considered view lhat the Tribunal was not justilied in dismissing the O.A. prelerred by the petitioner and therefore the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner afresh and pass speaking orders within a reasonable period of time. Further, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the respondents by taking his claim for grant of minimum time scale for the period from 1.992 to 2OO3 as part-time Vocational Junior Lecturer, within two weeks ald upon such representation being made, the respondents shall considered and pass appropriate orders within eight (B) weeks lrom the date ol receipt of copy of this order.

.AKS.J & RRN,J wP No.33171of 2010

¶49

B. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶50

There shal1 no order as to costs

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶52

shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/- L. SIVA PARVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// cjb

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

The Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶57

The Commissioner of lntermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶58

The Principal, Government RID Junior College, Kollapur, [Vlahabubnagar Diskict.

¶59

The Regiskar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.

¶60

One CC to SRI C SAI REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶62

Two CD Copies

KKS

tssK

I I li I I

HIGH COURT

DATED .1811012022

ORDER

WP.No.33171 of 2010

IHE s14
/<( V/(<br>/{
r
oo
1 4 Fri :i:l
(
*
,r' ,/

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

to
- ?>
o7'
o 6<br>gstr

K. Damodarnath, Mbnr Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Education Dept. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Damodarnath, Mbnr Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Education Dept. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs G. Anjilaiah

M.A. Sattar, Vs the Addl. Director General of Police, Railways

Wg.Cdr(Retd) M.G.Chhabria,R.K.Puram, Secunderabad Vs Union of India., Min.of.Defence, and 6 Others

M/S. Syed Bajan, Nalgonda Dist Vs Divisional Railway Manager, Guntur, and 4 Others

T. Narasimhulu, Medak District Vs High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and 2 Others

The Conservator of Forests, Warangal and 3 Others Vs B.Nagsinga Rao, Expired and 16 Others