IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT APPEAL No.74 of 2021
(Through virtual mode)
The Director General,
A.P. Special Protection Force,
D.No.74-14-1A, 2nd Floor,
Rajanarendra Building,
Yanamalakuduru Road, Krishna Nagar,
Patamata, Vijayawada-520 007 and another.
..Appellants
Versus
T. Krishnamachary, S/o T. Narayanachary,
Aged: 54 years, Inspector,
A.P. Special Protection Force,
Government Printing Press,
Muthyalampadu, Vijayawada Guards,
Vijayawada-520011, Krishna District, A.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : GP for Services I
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt:15.02.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This writ appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned single Judge in W.P.No.6921 of 2020.
2. The issue raised in this appeal is whether the respondent/writ petitioner was accorded proper seniority in the post of Sub-Inspector to which he was promoted in the year 2004.
3. Perusal of the material available on record goes to show that the respondent/writ petitioner was denied seniority in the cadre of Sub- Inspector from the date of his actual promotion to the said post i.e., from HCJ & SRS, J 2 W.A.No.74 of 2021 20.04.2004, on the ground that he was awarded minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 06.10.2001 and as per G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 25.09.1999, which stipulates that "one should not have any type of minor punishment during the last three years as on the date of appointment by promotion or by transfer", he was not eligible for promotion till 06.10.2004 and he was erroneously promoted on 20.04.2004 by ignoring the punishment awarded to him and having noticed the same, the date of his promotion was corrected as 26.11.2004 and therefore, his seniority was not reckoned from 20.04.2004.
4. It is to be noted that in the present case, G.O.Ms.No.289 Home (Police-H) Department, dated 25.09.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.135 Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 14.06.2013 would govern the subject issue. By G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 25.09.1999, Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force Subordinate Service Rules, 1995 were amended by incorporating 'Note (d)' under the heading '2-Tests' in Annexure-IV, which provides that one should not have any type of minor punishment for the last three years and major punishments for last five years as specified in the Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force Act, 1991 (Act 25 of 1991) as on the date of appointment by promotion or by transfer; and any person awarded punishments within this period shall not be eligible for appointment by promotion at his turn or by transfer. By subsequent G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 14.06.2013, the above Note (d) under the heading '2-Tests' in Annexure IV was deleted.
5. On earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.40163 of 2018 for issuance of a direction to the respondents therein to determine his seniority and promotion in the cadre of Sub-
HCJ & SRS, J 3 W.A.No.74 of 2021 Inspector as per the amended rule issued in G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 14.06.2013. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.08.2019 directing the respondents therein to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 26.06.2013 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law taking into account G.O.Ms.No.135 Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 14.06.2013.
6. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, in view of the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.40163 of 2018, G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 14.06.2013 has to be applied in his case and due seniority would be accorded to him without taking into consideration Note (d) under the heading '2-Tests' in Annexure IV cited in G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 25.09.1999, whereas according to the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, the said G.O.Ms.No.135 dated 14.06.2013 has prospective application, and the petitioner's seniority has already been decided in the year 2004 and therefore, he is not entitled to be accorded seniority as he sought for.
7. Having considered the submissions of both the counsel, we are in full agreement with the order passed by the learned single Judge. We observe that in the earlier writ petition viz., W.P.No.40163 of 2018, there was a direction to the appellants to consider the petitioner's representation strictly in accordance with law taking into account G.O.Ms.No.135. The said direction indicates that G.O.Ms.No.135 has to be made applicable in favour of the petitioner. The order in the said writ petition has attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the same. Therefore, it remains binding on both the parties. Now, it is not open for the appellants to contend that G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 14.06.2013 has no application in the case of the petitioner and it is not open for us to HCJ & SRS, J 4 W.A.No.74 of 2021 consider as to whether G.O.Ms.No.135 has prospective or retrospective application qua the petitioner. However, it is made clear, the issue as to whether G.O.Ms.No.135 has prospective or retrospective application is left open to be considered at appropriate stage in appropriate proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Nn