THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.36760 of 2017
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved
by the action of the respondents in not implementing the
orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Hyderabad in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013.
2. Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed as a Police Constable in the year 1972 and he has to absent himself from duties with effect from 28.04.1982 to 01.05.1982 owing to ill-health and the Disciplinary Authority has constituted the same as AKS, J & JAK, J ::2:: WP_36760_2017 misconduct and after conducting detailed enquiry and for proven misconduct in the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has dismissed the petitioner from service, vide order, dated 08.10.1986. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority, vide orders, dated 06.01.1987, was pleased to reject the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by filing R.P.No.3611 of 1989 and the Tribunal, vide orders, dated 23.04.1992, was pleased to set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 08.10.1986 and directed the 3rd respondent to modify the orders of the dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension and also held that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had contended that in pursuance to the orders passed by the AKS, J & JAK, J ::3:: WP_36760_2017 Tribunal in R.P.No.3611 of 1989, dated 23.04.1992, the respondents have re-instated the petitioner, vide proceedings, dated 20.07.1992. However, while re- instating the petitioner, the respondents have not treated out of employment period of the petitioner for the purpose of granting increments and for counting service benefits. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1791 of 2010 and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the said O.A., vide orders, dated 29.07.2013 and directed the respondents to ensure that the increments which are due to the petitioner be regularized. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013 have become final, the respondents are not implementing the said orders. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
AKS, J & JAK, J
::4:: WP_36760_2017
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had further contended that once the petitioner is re-instated, the service benefits for the out of employment period should be extended and to strengthen his proposition, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India and Others Vs. Dragendra Singh Jadon 1. He has also contended that out of employment period must be counted for the purpose of seniority and promotion. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013 and allow the Writ Petition.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that the Tribunal could not have allowed the O.A.No.1791 of 2010, vide orders, dated 29.07.2013, with a direction to the respondents to ensure that increments which are due to 1 (2022) 8 SCC 378 AKS, J & JAK, J ::5:: WP_36760_2017 the petitioner be regularized. The Tribunal has also observed that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages. When the petitioner could not succeed in earlier round of litigation in R.P.No.3611 of 1989 before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have given a direction contrary to the law. He contended that increments will be paid to an employee provided only he renders satisfactory services. In the instant case, the petitioner has not worked from 1982 to 1992 that means for a period of 10 years, he has not rendered service. Hence, the question of paying increments to the petitioner would not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition as the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013, cannot be implemented as the same is contrary to the law.
7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013 could not be implemented, as admittedly, the AKS, J & JAK, J ::6:: WP_36760_2017 petitioner was out of employment from 1982 to 1992 and the question of granting increments to the petitioner for out of employment period would not arise. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition.
8. With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 07.11.2023 KRR/ISN