1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
W.A. No. 797 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)
Heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Special
Government Pleader, representing Sri G. Vijaya Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel for appellant-university/
respondents and Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned counsel
for the 1st respondent/ writ Petitioner.
The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.29139 of 2022 are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
This Appeal is filed, questioning the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned Writ Petition. By way of the order impugned in the Appeal, the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the respondents in the Writ Petition to continue the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein in service as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance 2 (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 by enhancing the age of superannuation upto the age of 62 years.
According to the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein in the Appeal, she has been working in the appellant- university since the year 1988 as Telephone Operator and earlier she worked as Telephone Operation in the Institute of Coastal and Offshore Research, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, during the year 1986. The Registrar of appellant-university vide Memo bearing Ref.No.1455/MIII/2005, dated 12.04.2022 informed the writ petitioner that she would be retiring from service on 30.09.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. Challenging the validity of the said Memo, dated 12.04.2022, the first respondent-writ petitioner came up before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. After receipt of notice from this Court, the respondent-university filed a counter affidavit, resisting the Writ Petition and the relief sought for. The learned Single Judge eventually allowed the Writ Petition with a direction, referred to supra. 3
According to Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is highly erroneous and contrary to law and the learned Single Judge grossly erred in passing the order without considering the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant-university. It is also the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader in elaboration that the Regulations referred to at paragraph 5 of the impugned order are not relevant to the present case and the said Regulations pertain to Andhra University. It is further submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor, Andhra University, dated 31.01.2022 were also cancelled later by the Andhra University vide order dated 30.07.2022. It is also the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner herein is not a regular employee of the University and she is working on NMR basis, as such, the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein is not entitled for any relief from this Court.
On the contrary, Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein 4 contended that having regard to provisions of Section 3(d)(iv) of the University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 and the amended provisions of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, the writ petitioner-first respondent is entitled for the benefit of extension of the age of superannuation. A perusal of the material available before this Court reveals, in clear and vivid terms, that after receipt of the notice, the appellant- university filed a detailed counter affidavit, denying various averments and allegations made by the writ petitioner-1st respondent and in the direction of justifying the impugned action in the Writ Petition. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that the same does not refer to the contents of the counter affidavit, filed by the appellant-university.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the grounds urged in the Writ Petition, the pleadings in the counter affidavit of the appellant-university and the contentions raised, are required to be examined. In view of the same, 5 this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29139 of 2022 and the Writ Petition stands restored to file for consideration and disposal afresh. No order as to costs.
Having regard to the nature of controversy, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Registry to place this matter before the learned Single Judge having the provision as per roster in the first week of November, 2022.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J ____________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 28.10.2022 Ks 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA W.A. No.797 OF 2022 (per A.V. Sesha Sai, J) Date: 28.10.2022 Ks