Dismissed

Prl. Secy., Secondary Education Dept. and 2 Ors. v. Rayala Bhaskar Rao and Ano.

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/29157/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking certiorari and stay against the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had treated a specific period as spent duty for seniority and pension purposes. The Court held the Tribunal was justified as posting orders were not issued until after a ruling had already been passed, noting no force majeure circumstances existed. No interf

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed. The order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to treat the period as spent duty stood upheld. No order as to costs.

Prl. Secy., Secondary Education Dept. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WR|T PETITION NO: 29157 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Government of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶11

The District Educational Officer, Khammam District.

¶12

.....PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Rayala Bhaskar Rao, S/o.Saidaiah, S.G.Teacher, Primary School Musalimadugu, Khammam District, Rl/o.Flat No.502, B-Block, C.R.G .Paradise. H.No.4-2-8 12. Near District Court, Kavirajnagar, Khammam - 507 oo2.

¶15

.....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT lN O.A.No.2309/201 2

¶16

The Honfble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Purani Hayek Hyderabad.

¶17

....,RESPONDENT

¶18

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 a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to and connected with OA.No.2309/2O12 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh^{Administrative} Tribunal, Hyderabad and to^quash or set aside the order dated-21^.O3.2O14in OA.No.2309/2012 by holding as erroneous and contrary to^law.

¶19

|.A.NO:1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 36465 oF 2014)

¶20

Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the cirr;umsrances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the Hlgh Oourt rity tre pleased to suspend the operation of order dated:21.03.2014 in 0A.l{o.23,19/20'l 2 on the file of Hon'ble Andhra Pracesh Administrative Tribunal, Hydr:rabarl, rerding disposal of the above writ petitic n.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners : GP FOR SERVICES - |

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P.VEERABHADRA RE:DDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respcndent No.2: --

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶26

Writ Petition No.29157 of 2Ol4

¶27

ORDER: (Per llon'ble SA Justice Abhitond Kumar Shaoili)

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article-226 of the Constitution of India seeking a 'Writ of Certiorari'by calling for records relating to the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal'), Hyderabad in O.A.No.2309 of 2012, dated 01.09.2015 and to quash the same.

¶29

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P. Veerabhadra Reddy, learned counsel for the l"t respondent.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the was petitioners contended that the 1st respondent appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in December, 1997, however, during June, 2O01, the respondent has applied for long leave on medical grounds by enclosing Medical Certificate and whereabouts of the 1"t

¶31

1 AK5,J & R RN,J wtt 29157 2014

¶32

respondent were not known till she trpltroach,:d the Tribunal br filing O.A.No.23O9 of 2Ol2 and the Tribunal was pleased to grant interinr direr:tions^on 28.03.2012 directing the petitioners tc,^perrnit the^1"t respondent to join duty by issuing necessirry ltosting orders in terms of Government Circular m,3rno. dated 25.L2.1991 and proceedings, dated l2.O3.tlo 10 of the Director of School Education and the l.t re spondent 1n was permi| ed to join the duty pursuant to the interlocutorr orders passed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunat was pleased to allow the^rl.A vi<lc orders, dated 21.03 .2014 by directing the petition,:rs to treat the period lrom 21.04.2006 till the 51rant of interim on orders as 'spent duty' for tlre J)u rp lse of increments, seniority and pension, h,)wever, rvithout monitory b:nelits, without appreciating .ilry of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

¶33

Learne d Government Pleader for the pet: tioners had further contended that the whereirbou:s of the 1"t respondent were not known from 200 1-2OO2 till the 1"t respondent has filed the said O.A befcre ttre TribunaL.

¶34

AKS,J & RRN,.,' wp 29157 2Ot4

¶35

----------7

¶36

Therefore, the Tribunal could not have directed to treat the period from 21.O4.2006 till passing of interlocutory orders by the Tribunal as 'spent on duty' for the purpose of increments, seniority and pension. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.a.No.2309 of 2012, dated 21.O3.2OL4 and allow the writ petition.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for 1"t respondent had contended that after expiry of her leave, the l"t respondent has submitted a^joining report on 2L.O4.2OO6, but the petitioners have not given any posting orders, when the petitioners were not permitting the 1"t respondent to join the duty, in those set of circumstances, the 1"t respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2309 of 2012 and the Tribunal was pleased to grant interim order on 2a.O3.2O12 by directing the petitioners to permit the l"t respondent to join the duty. As the petitioners have failed to give posting orders, the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to treat the period from the

¶38

¶39

AKS -] & RRN,] \,i,29157 2014

¶40

date of subn.itting^joining report i.e., on^2L.(t4 .2006 till the passing of interim order^passed L,y the^Tribuna-l i.e., 28.03.2112. The Tribunal has riglrtly lire<:ted^to treat the pe:iod as 'spent on duty' for the^p rrJlose of increments, seniority and pension, hotv(:ver, the Tribunal ha:; not granted monitory benefits.^{'J'h<,refore,} the Tribuna has rightly allowed the O A in f,evour the l"t respondr:nt. Therefore, there are no mor,ts in the writ petition and the same is liable to b,: dis;lissed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitic,nt:rsr had contended t hat the Tribunal has directed t he period from the date of submitting joining rep()rt i.e., on 21.04.2006 tlll 28.03.2012 i.e., the date of interim order as 'spent on duty' with pay rr.nd alloryances. Therefore, that portion of the TribuneLl's orcler be set aside, as acmittedly, the 1"t respondent ha:; no.-.joined t11128.02.2QI3.

¶42

This Court having consider.ed the rival submissions made by both the parties is ol the view that the Tlitlunal has granted interin dirt,.ctions on

¶43

AKs,J & RRN,J wp 29t57 2Ot4

28.03.2012 by directing the petitioners to give posting orders, but no posting orders are given to the respondent trll 28.02.2O13. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of the 1". respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶48

With these observations, the Writ Petition is

¶49

dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

¶51

if any, shall stand closed,

¶52

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANLREGISTRAR L1D //TRUE COPY'

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

¶55

Two CC's to GP FOR SERVICES-^{l, High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OPUC]

¶56

Ohe CC to Sri P.Veerabhadra^{Reddy, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶57

Two CD Copies

SA GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110912023

ORDER

WP.No.29157 <r12014

-, a sTAI t o
i:a-
J
(
c g [t1 2m
r.) $
',, .. 1..r, .
., .\ /^
:' ;-;a-r,=-r11'..-;"

¶64

DISMISSING I HE W.P

¶65

WITHOUT COIJTS.

¶66

A D\r)
\r)

Prl. Secy., Secondary Education Dept. and 2 Ors. v. Rayala Bhaskar Rao and Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prl. Secy., Secondary Education Dept. and 2 Ors. v. Rayala Bhaskar Rao and Ano.

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

Devathoti Dhanaraju Vs R.Muthyala Raju, I.A.S

K. Ravinder Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

P. Dhanalakshmi Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. Vs Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Dr. Uzma Viquar Vs The Director

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others Vs G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano