D.S.V. Satyanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 731 AP
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D.S.V. Satyanarayana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 February, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                  WRIT PETITION No.2979 of 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief:

"....issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order, dated 13.03.2020, issued by the 4th respondent herein where under petitioner has been terminated on permanent basis by way of non-renewal of employment as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders....."

2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he was appointed as Field Assistant, by proceedings, dated 18.07.2007, and was converted as Fixed Tenure Employee, code - CRD No.13341 was allotted to him and provident fund was also fixed to him; that the petitioner filed W.P.No.21356 of 2019 questioning the order of termination, dated 18.11.2019, this Court, by order, dated 02.01.2020, directed the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.3 - the District Collector and further directed respondent No.3 to dispose of the same within four weeks, but on purported compliance of the same, respondent No.4 - the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, passed the impugned order, dated 13.03.2020, terminating the contract of the petitioner as Fixed Tenure Employee, by way of non-renewal of contract of employment. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No.2 issued a letter, dated 14.05.2019, extending the period of contract of Fixed Tenure Employees from 01.05.2019 to 31.03.2019 and the same was extended again on 17.03.2020 from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 for a period of twelve months, as the contract is to be extended yearly, 2 MSM,J W.P.No.2979 of 2021 respondent No.4 passed the impugned order, dated 13.03.2020, arbitrarily.

4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions urged in the writ petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the common judgment, dated 31.12.2015, of the common High Court in W.P.Nos.27468 of 2015 and batch, specifically to paragraphs 111 and 112 thereof and on the basis of the same, the petitioner contended that the impugned order is illegal and requested to set aside the same.

5. Whereas, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for MGNREGS (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) appearing for respondent No.4, has fairly conceded that the impugned order was passed by respondent No.4 - the Project Director on behalf of respondent No.3 - the District Collector and therefore, it is in contravention of the direction of this Court in the order, dated 02.01.2020, in W.P.No.21356 of 2019.

6. As seen from the order under challenge, whereby the contract of the petitioner as Fixed Tenure Employee was terminated and the individual was removed from service permanently, after conducting personal enquiry, it was passed by Ms.M.Syamala - the Project Director, but not by the District Collector. Therefore, the impugned order is in contravention of the order, dated 02.01.2020, in W.P.No.21356 of 2019.

7. On the above ground alone, the impugned order, dated 13.03.2020, passed by respondent No.4, is liable to be aside and the same is hereby set aside, while directing respondent No.3 - District Collector to follow the direction of this Court in the order, dated 02.01.2020, in W.P.No.21356 of 2019; the guidelines issued by the common High Court in the judgment, dated 31.12.2015, in 3 MSM,J W.P.No.2979 of 2021 W.P.Nos.27468 of 2015 and batch, and also strictly adhering to the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj from time to time in this regard.

8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

_____________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 09th February, 2021 GHN