In a second appeal, the High Court of Telangana upheld the trial court and first appellate court decrees, holding that the suit for damages was maintainable and dismissing the appeal against awarding damages to a junior assistant for unpaid salary.
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.
[321s ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RAN!
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1362 OF 2017
Appeal under Section'100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 0310612017 made in AS No.61 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangalpreferred against the decree in OS No.13of 2004 dated 051512014 on the file of the Court of the V Additional JuniorCivil Judge, Warangal.
Between:
Kondam Jayapal Reddy, aged about 70years S/o.Narasimha Reddy, Rl/o.H.No.1-7BB1/ r' Nandi Hills' Hunter Road' Hanam.koBit[ilft+TifpELLANr
(DEFENDANT)
AND
K.Ram Narahari, aged about 70 years, S/o.Narsaiah, Junior Assistant(Retd), Rrio'Errainda Virrase' wardha""'0" Yflg8bUftlift?i RESFLo=, (pLArNrFF)
For the Appellant : SRI M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY, Advocate
For the Respondent : SRI M.KESAVA RAO, Advocate
The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT
--t
'lHl. I ()NOt-RABI-1.. Dr..lljS'l'lCE (;. RAI)trA ttANI
SIiCOND ,,\I'PEAI- No. 1362 C)F 20r7
.rUlX;i\IEYI'
I'his -, cond Appeal is lilcd b1, rhe appe llanr-irpptllant-del'endant aggr-icr'cd hr ll-, .iudqrnent ancl ticcrcc passcd in A.S.lt: (rl oi 2014 dated 0i.0(r.20l7 orrlr' lllc ol' rhc VII Addirional I)isrrict .luclge, Warangal, conllrrrin" th,'' e:re.e and .iuduntent passed lll ( ).S.N l i ol 2004 dated 05.05.20l4 .. tlr lilc ol'the ,, Additional Junior Civii Ju<i::, !y'ara,sal
L I tr: 1t rrtics err- h,:r'ciniriicr- rclcr-rccl ir\ ilrra(tcl lrclbrt. thc trial
coLlrl
L I'ltL: : a ntill'lilccl a sLrrt lirr- tlarrrlLgcs 1br an arrr. lt)t 01-Rs. 1j.400/_ wiLh intt'r'e's. ar l. )i prr arrnunr ll.rnr thc datc of isst enct rl Icsal noLicc dated I3.06.2002 till rl : datc ol 1-:lirrg ol thc sLrit ard u ith litrrre ntercst on the principal surr .1 F:s. 10.000,- till r.ealisation. 1hc pla ,lill' \as a .lunior Assistant in Z.l'.i lich.ol. lllarrda and thc clcl-endant \as tlrc I ead Masrer ol the said scht,ol. rhi: plaintilf conrencled thal the rlel-.ncjan r cvr.lopcd adverse attitude as.airrst lr r lrhilc he r',as rroll<ing us Junit,r ..\ssi.ran1 durinu 2000-
')
l)r( )Rli..l \a I J6) )01 i
2002 and used to harass b-v creating troublc and inconvenie,cc to hir,, ln February 2000, the defendant deducted Rs.8;t6l- frorn his salary torvards Income Tax anci misappropriated the same lor his personal needs and the defendant rernit.ted the said arnount on l9-06-2000 to thc Income tax department. The delendant collected spccial fce lrom the studcnts and also from the son of the plaintiff, who was studying l0'r' class and issued receipl No.49 dated 22-02-2001 lrom thc daily lee collecrion book and withour making entry in the cash book, misappropriated the sald amount for himsclf and thereby, caused loss to the govemment. The defendant in the ycar 2002, rvrongly shown the C.P.F arnount ol some of the statT rnembers of the school and allowed them to avoid Payr-nent o{' lncome tax to rhc qove.nmcnf arcl caused loss to the government exchcqucr. tle lufther stateC that in 2000-200 i. the ciefendant illegally sanctionec preserved priviieee lca'es to the Rccoicl Assistant of the school for which she w.as not e ligible and caused loss to thc Govemment exchequer.'fhe defendant illegally withheld his salary for the months of April ar.rd May, 2002 due to which, he suffered mental agony and harassment. He approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and an order was passed by the A.p.A.T. directing the Chief Educational officer to consider the lnatter as pcr rules. Due to the illegal acts
n
Dr(ill1l,.l t i62 )() l'
of thc dclL'r'rlant, )( applicd lor voluntarv retiremcnt lrorr .,:n,rce. [1e lurther submittr-(l tlrat he s,rt issuccl I lcsrrl uoticc to thc clctendar I ,rn ll-0(r-2002 lbr his rLnprricl :alarv arrd darnases. bLrt rhe clel'cndant did iti)t'..spond. .{.gain on 01-09-2003. he ir;Led another leeal notice to the dc.lenclarr anil his succcssor [{cacl Mastcr 16' 1' rr' damages o1- Rs. 10.000/- within a.,rc,:i bl t thet e was no rcsponse to he sr d notice al:o. IIcncc. filed the suit
l. I l' : del'endant tllccl r.ilitten statcmjnt d: r,in3 the petition avcnnent5 Ihc ctendant er)ntcndcd that thc suit rias l--l red Lrt limitation IIc uorkccl .rs Ir rt N1aste r- in l.l).S. school, Illanda, W: rtlharLnapet Mandal Iiorn 19e2 to I -()6-2002 and rvas transl'erred to Pirlr rncha as Mandal Educational Offic :r'l'hc plainLill'ri'ho rvas workini as .l rrrior.r\ssistant w,as rcsponsiblc lbr Pr -'1 aration ol salrrrr bills and uron:y bill; petttrining to the school ancl I v,':r the duty ol Lhc plaintilf to prepare rnt, Lthlv bills and to deduct Incontc tar I'a)ablc br Lhc stalf al the end oi I-.'5rLI rv l1'ever.,, year 'l'hc plairLitl r!.(t(-r .ccl his strlarr ol Rs.'/.9.10i tbr Ircbrrritr. .1000 rvirhout an1 deduction.'. he p ti ttilf was not an Ir]conte tax asscssee atr,.l n(r Lax !as parid by him.'lh,: piai rtiff approached him in the last \eck ol uno 20()0 to pay Inconre'l ar of Rs ti.t6,'- lor rrhie h hc sratcd that he rrecd r ot pa\ an\ tax and
I
-11 .:i'
..,
l)r( iRR,J su ! .162 2()1 '
inspite ol that the plaintill rcquestcd the delcndant to collcct incotnc taxas such, he collectcd a surn of t{s.8461 in l;ebruary 2000. I'hc plaintilf wrote a receipt without date on the letter pad and also tllled a blank challan to repay to the income tax department. The delendant signed on the receipt without date and month and only rvritten thc ycar as 2000. lle lurther contended that the special fee was ccllected lrom students other than SC, 51' and BC students, whose annual income was more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. The plaintiff was an ernployec and his annual inconrc n,as nlorc than Rs. 12,0001-.'lhe special fee co[lected was remitted propcrly.'i'hc plaintill alonewas responsible for collection of fee and to maintain cash book properly. The Zilla Parishad was the supelior for inspcction of entire rr:cords and that thercwas no itlegality committed by the def'endant.'l'hc plaintiff re(used to attendthe school in the summer vacation and the highcr arrthorities i.c., Zilla Parishado1- Warangal approved and sanctioned theprest:rved privilege leaves tothe Record Assistant, as she worked in sutnnrcr vacatiorr. lhc sutnmervacation commenced from 24th April to I l'h June. The April salary of stafl of Z.P.S. School, Illanda was received by the defendant andwas paid to the entire staff mbmbers. Since theplaintilT was not availablc, his salary of Rs.6,990/-was refunded to the S.T.O.. Wardhannapet, so also the salary ol May 2002. The
I )r GRlt .J v i.J62 201:^
defendant \ -rs r'l rslclred liorn lllanda to Palvancha. K h.rrnmrLni I)istrict as M.E.O rrn l6-0(r- .()02.'['hc dclendanr retired as M.[..() rrnd thelc rvas no complaint l' 1l) dcparlrnr'nt dLrrin,l his service. ll e plaintifT \,AS irresponsible au(i .al the habit of crcating problerns andr\irs nrt entitled lor the reliel o1'rlanre[ i: and praved to disnriss the suit
Bas rr: on the said pleaclings, the trial coufl f-r ne(l the issues as
fb llorvs
| l)\,hethcrthe:urlisnlaintainabicunclcrSectl,rr()of('l)( ) |
|---|
| 2)\Vhcthcrtheplaintrl'lsanInconrclapayrrrLdliabletopay Ircomc'laron hissallr'l |
| II\/hetherthcDeI'endanr causedanrmi)ne.ir\ltsst,.,the (ior ernntcnl.' |
| I'so,rvhcthcrtheplaintiffltasaryrcrrtrlvigairrslthe delendant') |
| Ir\r'hetherthcsuitis [r.irrcd b1lintitation) |
| .t'hctherthcplaintilli\cntillcd firr riamagi..)ll(. l0l)(X)- irjainslllre tlcicrrdarrl) |
| r)r\rhcthertlrcplaintillisliablelop.r)c(rrtlar,cosrsot |
| lls,..000itothedelcnrlanlunderSecti,)n'5,',lCP(''l |
| /rlo\halreliil'l |
docLul!-nls \ ire nr rlled on his behalf
6
<br>
Dr.0llll.J su 1362 20l7
7, The trial Cou( on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answcred issue No.l holdinq that the suir was maintainable under Seclion 9 of the Civil Proccdurc C'ode. fhe tlial(lourt observing that no notice was issued by the lncome'[ ax de parlrlent lor nonpayment of income tax or tax with penalty to thc plaintiffl, thele was no date and month on the receipt markcd as E,x.A6, the plaintifl had the option to lile his pay particulars relating to February 2000 to prove that an amount of Rs.846/- u'as deducted from his salarv in the month of Februarv. but failed to do so, answered issue No.2 against thc plaintiff
1
Dr GltR..l , !i62 )011
10.tA'i h regard to issue No.5, the trial court, ns\verc(i lhe said issue ol'rorr-pa\ r crt of thc plaintif{'s salary lor the mt,ntlt- of .\pril2.002 and N'llr' l(l()l br 1r def'cndant rvas intentional and .rl rrrrtecL damases of tts.(r.00(),'- to t)rc: plaintifl'payable b1, the delendant with rter,rst at l2ok per annurn lion thl( irre of issuancc ol lcqal noticc dat('d ll. )(r 2002 till thc date ol'relii:ntit,n. I re issuc Nc,,6 rr'as ansu,ered agairrst tlit .lele ndrnt that the dcl'endant \ as r .)l entitled firr exemplary costs o1 R:,. 1.0()0/- liom thc plaintiff
1 l. l-h s. the tr-ial court ansr.vered all the sstrcs rr-iairst thc plaintill crcept i-.sLre \r's.r. r-tcl Q which w'ere answered against the rl. ler dant.
8
!)r GNl../ ta I .i6) )t) l-
I
Dr GRR..I :o i i6) )() l?
appreciatior: ol ll rts, which rcsulled in miscarriage o1'.iu,st:ce and raised the
suhsttrntiirl c uc:r1i, n I ol la\ tirr considcration as follorvs:
al \ hether tlr( surt lirr damagcs lor menta lgoll\ rs rrrinlainablc.' b) \hether appellant,dclcndant can bc rnule l.erst,nallr lilLblc lor darragcs lor the alleged lapscs ciont rlLrring thc r. Lrsc ol'hi\ ol'llcial dLrties? \ hen lhe clrrin of drrrages is litr a cLrnLtlali,. e mrct ol .h: sevcral xcts conrnitted antl whcn lirund :r rtc c,l'Lhe lcts *ere hurred br limitation. rvh,'tht'r lr, sL ir is .n rin ta inab le')
l. I hi(--ourt on 06.12.2017, on hearing the r: r.nr cl counsel tbr
the ap1-rc lunt fo rn tllted the substantial cluesttons of lati as , llo*s
,\ relher thc rrppellant,i de fi:ndant can bc made pr..soralir iablc ftrr danrai.les lbr the alleged laps,'s in prr lent o1' )a! irrd allo\vances to the plaintil'f dur ng the :.rurs: 0l' ri: olllcial clLrtic.. as l lcad Maste r'/ \ tLtltcr llrc ..rr' i: nr.rrrttlinablc in ricr' rr'Pr.. ;.j,,1j11 ie ,rtirrn 28 ol Administrative l ribunals ,\ct. 198:, rtn rhc La, r.'hsn thc surr !\as instituted /
lr. Ilca d the learnecl counsel for the a[)pellal], antl thc learned
counscl lirr tlrc lcs ondcnt on the above substantial quesliolrj Jf larv
Subst:rntirrl()u'-'s( o0s of lau Nos.I and 2
l(r.'l Irc srrit was Illcd fbr. damages by rhe plri:rtifl againsL the dcl'endant in lris pt:sonal capacir) contending that the del'err.ant cxhjbited an
t0
l)t( illll..l (1 1362 2(tl
adverse attitude against him, harassed and caused inconveniencc to him.'lhe plaintiff contended that he suffered mental agony due ro the vindictive arrirude of the defendant, who returned the monthly salary ol the plaintifl lor the months of April and May, 2C02 to the S.T.O., Wardhannaper without making payment to him.
(b) any Industrial l'ribunal, Labour Coun or ()ther authority constituled under the lndusrrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 ol 1947) or any other corrcsponding la,'v fbr the time being in force. shall have], or be entitled to cxcrcise anyjurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitmcnt or such service matters.
to the matters concerning the rccruitmcr.rt or servicc mattcrs concerning
l;
II
l)t .GRR ,1 tet l-16) )(tl1
nrcmbers ol' ury s(rvice.'l'he plaintiff had filed O.r. No 6832 o1' 2002 bclirlc tht \clr rinistratirc Iribunal. Ilvdcrlrbad raisiurr ,hc issuc ol' nonpar rnent r,1 s rlr firr the rnonths o1'April and May, 20r)l an,l an order was passed bv tlrc ,f Cnrinistrativc'fribunal, Hyderabad on 21.1)7.1.002 by giving a tlirection ro tl rc C.hicl' l:recutire. Ofliccr o1 Tillrrparishad to pass applopriat.' o'd, r's as per the Rules. The grievance o1't:t: plaintiff in filing Lhc present s-rit lrr danragcs is tbr causing mental a5o'ry..o hint by the clclL'ndrnt rlLrr: t, tis rinclictirc atlilude in not pal ing tlt: sa)ary, s,ithin the tirnc ancl .cn l ir it back Lo the S. 1.O.. AdmittedLv. .l erc rvas surrmer vacation t| th: s :ltool 1rom 25.021.2002 to 10.06.2002. [[i. las,r wor.king day u as on l-1 0l l( )- and the lirst rvorking day after sLlrnnr,)t vrcation vi as on I I .06.200-. h plaintilf u as admitte dly present on bolf :he days. Ilence, thc dell'ntlunr rt rght to havc paicl the salary of the p iL n1iIf on the first ri,orking drir tti :r sul'nnrel vacaLiolt i.e., on I 1.06.2(r02 1ll the ntonths of April and \1a, 0 )1. Adnritte-dI1,. all the stalf member; ,rl')l.p.S, School, Illanda rcciir,:<l srrltrries lirr the above months e\cept the plaintifl. The dcl.cndant lail,:c[ tt sLatc as to rvhen lhe salaries o]- all ot -:r : taff urcmbers r'r'cre paicl. irr rv ir I rnode and whon he received the srile 1 es lor the above Ironths. Il s t,:tL'1ing bacl< the salarl, of the plaintilf al6rt: crr 10.06.2002 to
l2
!)r( i RR.,l 5q 1-1() )t)i'
the S.1'.O., Vr'ardhannapet one dayprior to the reopcning olthc schoolon summer vacation would show hismalafide intention to harass him.fhough the salary of the plaintiff was paid to him on 0l .10.2002.the delay caused in paynrent of salary to the plaintiff, a small employeewho andhis lamily'wcre dependant on the salary eamings alone showsthe malafide intention on the parl of the defendant. Denial of payment of salary is denial ofright to Iilc and violation of fundamental rights. Ilence.this Courldoes not find any illegality or infirmity inthe judgmentsand de<:reesof theCc,rurtsbelowto set aside the same. J'he substantialquestionsof lau' Nos. I and 2 arealiswercd holding that the appellant/defendant can bemade personally liablefor' damages for the alleged lapses inpayment ofpay and allowances to the plaintifl lor the months of April and May. 2002 andthat the suit was maintainable even after the establishment ofthe Adnlinistrativcl ribunals Act, 1985 as Section 28 of the samewould not bar the jurisdictionof thc Civil('ourts in claiming the damagcs.I{encc, both thc substantial qucstions of law are answered against the appellantand in favour of the respondent confirming the decrees andjudgmentsof tl-re Courts below in awarding damages to the respondent/plaintiff tobe paid by theap oe llant/det'endant and the respondent is permitted to withdrawtho decreetal amount deposited
IJ
1)r.GRR..l ',rI i62 201,
b\ thr' arrp. llr nr"dcf cndant bclbrc the / Addirio.al Irrni.r Cir il Judge, Wurangal in tlr rorrcemccl E.p. in O.S.No.13 o12004
l(, r thc resLrlr. the appeal is dismissed co tf:rm ng thc decrees anrl .jLrdgrnenlr ol thr. Cotrrts below in alr anlinll damages to the rcs po r rilcn t 1t I ir r till'to he paid br tlrt appellant/de lcntlar t nd the rcspondent pe r-rn it Lecl r rr ithclraii the dccreetal amoLrnt :.:posited by the appcll.rtlrleflr:rrr urt irclbre .hc V Acrcritionar Junior ci'ir Irrcrg:, warangal in thc crrrcer-rr-d Ii I' irro.S.No. l-l or'r00u1. No ordcr.rs t() i()sts.
r\1ir;ce iu Lc.rus Aplrlications, i1'any pending shall l,t.tnd closccl
Sc/-l(.SlllNIVASA RAO .IOIt\IT REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPYII
S;ECIION OFFICER
To
1 . The Vll Add tic re I District Judge, Warangal.
Kj
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/06/20I:3
JUDGMENT
SA.No.1362 of 20'17
i I 1. ,-f-=+()
,4: r'
1" (
?
/-) 1 \r J\L 1sl3 a-l
' ,-> i-
\ .i<br>
sA rs DtsMtsseo. i. '4,-l
"/
1
7 :)/
[321s ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
SECOND APPEAL NO: 1362 OF 2017
Between:
Kondam Jayapal Reddy, aged about 70 years S/o.Narasimha Reddy, R:/o.H.No.1-7881/ I' Nandi Hills' Hunter Road' Hanam.koBi?flflft??ifpElLANr
(DEFENDANT)
AND
K.Ram Narahari, aged about 70 years, S/o.Narsaiah, Junior Assistant (Retd), R/o'Errainda Virrase' wardhannapet YflE3'iH^?tTfl?io*':t{Bbrr.Nr (pLArNrrFF)
Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree of the Court of the Vll AdditiQnal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal in AS No.61 of 2014 daled 0310012017 prefened against the decree of the Court of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal in OS No.13 of 2004 dated 051512014.
DECREE: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First lnstance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.Keshava Rao, Advocate for the Respondent.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows
Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPYi/
SECTIO OFFICER
To
Kj
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/06i 20,!3
DECREE
SA.No.1362 ot 2017
SA IS DISMISSED
N^fr^ -;{r'>'>
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for damages for mental agony is maintainable?
Whether an official can be made personally liable for alleged lapses during the discharge of official duties?
Whether Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in claiming damages for service matters?
Kondam Jayapal Reddy
K. Ram Narahari
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
