Allowed

P. Vajra Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC2 Jan 2024WP/9206/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas petition and related petitions, the High Court held that upon the withdrawal of a government order cancelling the petitioner's regularization, the appointment was validated. The court directed respondents to include the petitioner in the seniority list of Health Assistants and grant promotion with consequential benefits, while closing a parallel writ petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's name to be included in the seniority list of Health Assistants and promoted as Sanitary Inspector with all consequential benefits; the other writ petition to be closed as infructuous.

P. Vajra Kumar Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9206 OF 2021 AND 45737 OF 2022

¶7

wP NO.9206 0F 2021:

¶8

Between:

¶9

P. Yaya Kumar Reddy, S/o Balavardhan Reddy, Aged about 38 years, working as Health Assistant, [Vlahabubnagar tvlunicipality, N/ahabubnagar, R/o l\ilahabubnagar, A/ahabubnagar District.

¶10

...pETtTtoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director of lt/lunicipal Administration, Government of Telangana, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Mahabubnagar Municipality, Mahabubnagar Rep.by its Commissioner.

¶16

The Municipal Council, lilahabubnagar Rep.by lts Chairperson...*ES'.NDENTS

¶17

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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the Show Cause Notice Roc. No.E-292582/326120181 RDIVIA/A3 dt.11412021 issued by the 3rd respondent and also declare that the GORt.No.271, MA and UD dt.291312019 which was issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Municipalities Act is invalid and being colorable exercise of powers and ultra virus Section 59 of the Act and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the^principles of natural^justice and contrary to the orders passed by this Honourable Court in WP No 12099 and WP 4387812018 d1.291312019 and in WP No 6966/2019 dt.21412019 and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Health Assistant in Mahabubnagar Municipality

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the GORt.271, MA & UD Deptt., d1.291312019 issued by the l st respondent, pending final disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶21

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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the Show Cause Notice Roc. No.E292582132612018/RDMA/A3 dt.11412021 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending final disposal of the writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES

¶23

Counsel for Respondent Nos. I to 3: GP FOR SERVICES lll

¶24

Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN

¶25

WPNO: 45737 OF 2022

¶26

Between:

¶27

P. Vaya Kumar Reddy, S/o Balavardhan Reddy, aged about 40 years, working as Health Assistant, IVlahabubnagar Municipalitt, Mahabubnaga'r, R/o A/ahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District.

¶28

...pErt,oNER

¶29

AND

¶30

'1 The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, tVlunicipal Administration And Urban Development Department,'secretaiiat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶31

The Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Telangana, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶32

3 The R-egional Director of Municipal Administration, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad

¶33

The IVlahabubnagar Municipality, Mahabubnagar rep.by its Commi6sioner.

¶34

RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Health Assistants prepared by the 3rd respondent vide Mlemo Roc. No.E-506704IRDMA1A1t2022 d1.24.11.2022 is i|egat, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by this Honble Court in Wp Nos.12099

¶36

¶37

and 4387812018 dt.29.3.2019 and further direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Health Assistants and^promote the petitioner as Sanitary lnspector in terms of the orders passed by this Honble Court in WP Nos^'12099 and 43878/2018 dt.29.3 2019

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶39

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 include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Health Assistants and promote as Sanitary lnspector in terms of the orders^passed by this Honble Court in WP Nos.'12099 and 4387812018 dt.29.3.2019,^pending final disposal of the writ petition

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY

¶41

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES lll

¶42

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY

¶43

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶44

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶45

W.P.Nos. 9206 of 2O2L & 45737 of 2022

¶46

COMMON ORDER:

¶47

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus calling for the records relating to the show cause notice Roc.No.E 292582 I 326 I 20 lB I RDMA/A3, dt. 0 1. 04.2O2 | issued by the respondent No.3 and the G.O.Rt.No.271, MA and UD d1.29.O3.2O19 issued by the respondent No.1 in exercise of powers under Section 59 of the Municipalities Act, as invalid and ultra Virus Section 59 of the Act and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. t2O99 l2Ol8, W.P.No.43878 I 2018, dt.29.03.2019 and in W.P.No.6966 /2019, dt.O2.O4.2Ol9 and consequently to direct the respondents to cor-rtinue the petitioner as Health Asslstant in Mahabubnagar Municipality and to pass such other order or orders.

¶48

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Health Assistant in terms of Council Resolution No.1034, dated 24.Ol.2OOS vidc Proceedings No.F1/ 1419/2OO5, dated

¶49

¶50

AMD,J W.P-Nos- 9206^oJ 2O21^e 45737 of 2022

¶51

24.01.2005 issued by the Chairperson, Municipal^Council, Mahabubnagar, pursuant to the advertisement issued in^the newspaper on behalf of the Mahabubnagar Municipality^and having regard to the petitioner's eligibrlity and^{qualifications.} However, the petitioner was being denied wages as^{per the} Government Orders and therefore, the^{petitionerfiled} O.A.No.1O88 of 2008 before A.P.Administrative^{Tribunal and} initially by way of Interim Order dated 26.12.2OOa,^{Tribunal was} pleased to direct the respondents therein to^pay basic^{pay as} per Para 2 of G.O.Rt.No.217, dated 26.02.2001 and as^{per Para-} 4 of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 08.01.2008. Pursuant to^{the Interim} Orders, Municipal Council has^{passed resolutionNo.3Odated} 30.05.2009 to pay wages with effect from^{24.01.2006ar,d} further resolved to regularize the services of the^{petitioner with} effect from 01 .06.2OO9 vide Proceedings^Rc.No.C1 /4750/2OO8' 09 dated 10.05.2010 and the said^{proceedingswere issuedby} the Chairperson, Municipal Council,^Mahabubnagar Municipality.

¶52

Pursuant thereto, the Government^issued G.O.Rt.No.959 dated 15.O6.2O 13^{permittingthe respondent} No.2 to authorize respondent No.4 to send proposals to the

¶53

¶54

AMD,J W.P-Nos. 9206 oJ 2027 & 45737 of 2022

¶55

District Audit Officer for payment of arrears to the^{petitioner as} Health Assistant through Treasury under 01O Head of Account on par with othcr cmployees of the Municipality. Accordingly, the Special Officer and District Collector, Mahabubnagar, issued Proceedings Rc.No.C 1/443 5l20).3 dated 28.06.2013 permitting the petitioner to draw the pay and allowance from Treasury and accordingly, the petitioner claims to be drawing pay and allowances.

¶56

The respondent No.4, thereafter, addressed a lettcr vide Lr.Roc.No.C1l9044/2013, dated 05.07.2013 to the respondent No.3 recommending inciusion of petitioner's name in the seniority list of Health Assistants, but when the respondent No.3 has communicated the tentative seniority list of Health Assistants vide Proceedings dated 26.07 .2076, ti:'e petitioner's name was not included therein. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 later sent proposals for inclusion of names of others and the petitioner submitted his representation dated 27.12.2016 to the respondent No.3 with a request to include his name in the seniority list, but when the name of the petitioner was not included, the petitioner fi1ed W.P.No.37849 of 2Ol7 assailing the action of the respondents in not including the

¶57

¶58

TMD'J W.P.Nos- 9206 o-[ 2O21 & 4s737 oJ 2022

¶59

petitioner's name in. the seniority list and further denying promotion as Sanitary Inspector. Further aggrieved in promoting the petitioner's junior as Sanitary Inspector vide Proceedings dated 27 .1O.2017 , the petitioner fi1ed another writ petition in W.P.No.12099 of 2018 and an interim order dated 10.04.2018 was passed therein, but the same was not complied with and therefore the petitioner hled Contempt Case No.25l I of 2018.

¶60

It is submitted that the respondents, thereafter filed a stay vacate petition in W.P.No.12099 of 2O18 and the respondent No.3 issued an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for inclusion in the seniority list terming petitioner's cmployment as Contractual vide Proceedings No.326/2012/RDMA/A1, dated 13.08.2018 without even referring to the order of regularization and earlier litigation. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13.08.2018 issued by the respondent No.3, the petitioner hled W.P.No.43878 of 2O 18. This Court vide final orders dated 29.O3.2079 disposed of the W.P.No.i2099 of 2O18 and W.P.No.43878 of 2018 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion duly obser-ving that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as

¶61

¶62

TMD,J w.P.Nos. 9206 of 2027 & 45737 oI2022

¶63

Sanitary Inspector. Thereafter, at the^{time of dictation of order} by the Honl:le Court, it was submitted^{that the impugned} orders G.O.Rt.No.271 MA, dated^{29.O3.2019 was issued only to} frustrate the petitioner's claim for^{promotion and to defeat the} judgment renderecl in earlier two writ petitions. It is submitted that G.O.Rt.No.271, Municipal Administration^&Urban Development (TPE2), dated 29.03.2019 was^{passed by the} Municipal Council, Mahabubnagar Municipality,^{cancellingthe} Council Resolution No.1034. dated 24.01.2OO5 and^Council Resolution No.3O, dated 30.05.2009. Thus, the^{petitionerwas} constrained to approach this Court by fillng^{W.P.No.6966of} 2O19 and the same was disposed of by observing that^the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents,^on instructions, submitted that the respondents would withdraw the impugned orders and an opportunity would be^given to^the petitioner and thereafter appropriate orders will be^{passed in} accordance with iaw and thus, writ petition was closed. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued show cause^notice Roc.No.E 2925821326/2Ot8l RDMA/A3, dated Or.O4.2021 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated/ dis-engaged consequent to proposed cancellation of CR No.1034. dated 24.OL2OO5 and CR No.30,

¶64

¶65

TMD.J w.P-Nos- 9205 oJ 2021 & 45737 of 2022

¶66

dated 30-O5.2009 with fourteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. Challenging the said show cause notice dated O1.O4.2O21 and a declaration that G.O.Rt.No.271, MA&UD Department, dated 29.03.2019 is invalid, the W.P.No.92O6 of 2021 was filed.

¶67

While issuing the Notice before admission, vide interim orders dated 23.12.2022 in W-P.No.45737 of 2022, tl.is Court had directed the respondents not to fill up one post of Sanitary Inspector in ZontVI (Jogulamba region) pending further orders. Subsequently, at the admission stage vide orders dated 12.04.2021 the impugned show cause notice dated Ol.O4-2O21 was suspended. Subsequently thereto, the respondents have withdrawn the G.O.Rt.No.271, MA&UD Department, dated 29.03.2019, vide G.O.Rt.No.745, dated 23.I1.2022. Subsequently, respondent No.3 prepared a tentative seniority list of the Health Assistants working in the region, but the petitioner's name did not lind place in the said list which was prepared vide Memo dated 24.17 .2022. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.12.2022 to the respondent No.2 hcrein seeking consideration

¶68

¶69

TMD,J W-P.Nos- 9206 of 2O2l & 45737 ol2022

¶70

of his case for inclusion in the senrority list, but no action was taken and therefore, he filed W.P.No.45737 of 2022

¶71

This Court after taking note of all the above circumstances, has directed the respondents not to h1l up one post of Sanitary Inspector in Zone-VII (Jogulamba region) pending further orders

¶72

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the W.P.No.9206 of 2021 has become infructuous and it is accordingly closed as infructuous.

¶73

In respect of the W.P.No.45737 of 2022, ttrc respondents have filed a counter afhdavit admitting that the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No-271 , dated 29.O3.201.9 regarding cance llation of council resolution of appointment and regularization of services of the petitioner made irregularly without Government permission, was withdrawn in G.O.Rt.No.745, dated 23.77.2022. However, it is stated that since his appointment has been on contract basis and regularization has been done without obtaining the permission from the Government, hrs case calnot be considered for inclusion in the seniority list of Health Assistants.

¶74

¶75

TMD.J U/-P-Nos- 9206 of 2O2l & 45737 oJ 2022

¶76

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the cancellation of regularization has been withdrawn by the Government, the consequences that follow are that the regularization of the services of thc pctitioner have become valid and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of the Health Assistants and subsequent promotion.

¶77

Learned Government Pleader, however, supported the orders of the authorities below.

¶78

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the withdrawal of G.O.Rt.No.27l, dated 29-O3.2O19 vide G.O.Rt.No.745, dated 23.77.2022, the appointment of the petitioner and subsequent regularization have been validated. Having done so, the respondents cannot now take a stand that the appointment of the petitioner is irregular. The consequential benefits of regularization have to be given to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is eligible for consideration and inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Health Assrstants and a1l consequential benehts thereafter. It is noticed that the petitioncr had approached this Court on a number of occasions and thc

¶79

l-,.&;l';t'

¶80

¶81

TMD,J w-P-Nos. 9206 of 2o21 & 45737 of 2022

¶82

respondents have been taking stand that^{his appointment was} irregular and this Court has not accepted^{the said contentional1} along and ultimately, the respondents have withdrawn^the cancellation of his appointment as well as his^{regularization.}

¶83

i 3. In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of Health Assistants and confer al1 the consequential benefits including promotion to the petitioner as per his eligibility and seniority.

¶84

Accordingly, the W.P.No.45737 of 2022 rs allowed and W.P.No.92O6 of 2021 is closed as infructuous. There shal1 be no order as to costs.

¶85

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these

¶86

writ petitions, sha11 stand closed.

¶87

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL I ASSISTANT REGIFTRAR I

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, I/lunicipal Administration And^{Urban Development} Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶93

2 Th6 Director of tvtunicipal Administration, Government^{of Telangana, AC} Guards,Hyderabad.

¶94

J, The Regi6nal Director of t/unicipal Administration, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad 4 The Commissioner, [/lahabubnagar Municipality, Mahabubnagar. One CC to M/s. Bharadwaj Assocaates Advocate [OPUC]

¶95

6 Two CCs to GP For Services, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate(OPUC) 8 One CC to Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate(OPUC) o Two CD Copies

¶96

MBC BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210112024

.iE STAr
1 €
(
| ;, i,: ?t2i ()v
o 03
*.
(_. c

¶101

COMMON ORDER

¶102

WP NO: 9206 OF 2021 AND 45737 OF²⁰²²

¶103

CLOSING THE WP NO.92O6 OF 2021 AS INFRUCTUOUS & ALLOWING THE WP NO.45737 OF 2022

¶104

WITHOUT COSTS

¶105

t4v'

P. Vajra Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Vajra Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 4 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

Smt K. Ambika Vs Sri D.S Lokesh Kumar, I.A.S

Siragni Muralidhar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Siragni Muralidhar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Vivek Vs Damodhar Reddy

Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs The State of Telangana

K.M. Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana