Telangana High Court
Potti Sri Ramulu Telugu University vs M.Ramulu on 3 January, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.1165 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.15370 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri M. Surendar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-University and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. It is the case of the appellant-University that initially the 1st respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant on daily wage basis on 10.04.1992. The alleged selection took place without issuing any open advertisement or candidates were called for from the Employment Exchange. Thereafter, his services were regularised vide proceedings dated 04.03.1995 and his probation was also declared on 02.04.1997 and finally, the 1st respondent has retired from service on ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1165_2023 29.02.2020. While extending the pension and pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent, the audit has raised an objection about the illegal appointment of the 1st respondent and as to how the pay scales of Ninth Pay Revision Commission extended to the 1st respondent. When the appellant-University has not extended the revised pay scales to the 1st respondent, on the ground that his appointment was illegal and contrary to the procedure as set out by the appellant, the 1st respondent had filed W.P.No.13116 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 09.06.2017 allowed the same and directed the appellant-University to extend the revised pay scales to the 1st respondent. The appellant-University vide letter dated 16.01.2020 sought clarification from the Government for issuance of notification for pension. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent has again filed W.P.No.15370 of 2020 for sanction of pension and pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1165_2023 appellant-University, learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.04.2023 allowed the said writ petition by directing the appellant-University to release the consequential benefits to the 1st respondent. Hence, the present writ appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that when the appointment of the 1st respondent is contrary to law and illegal, learned Single Judge ought not to have given a direction to the appellant-University to pay pension and pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma 1, State of Punjab v. Bahadur Singh & others 2 and also judgment of the then Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lipika Nanda v. Nizam's Institute Of Medical Sciences 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had 1 Civil Appeal No.7879 of 2019, dt: 17.10.2019 2 Civil Appeal No.7347 of 2008, dt:17.12.2008 3 2001 (2) ALD 660 ::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1165_2023 further contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, illegal appointment of the 1st respondent cannot be regularised. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent had contended that the 1st respondent was initially appointed on daily wage basis and after undergoing regular selection process, his services were regularized and he was appointed as Junior Assistant vide proceedings dated 04.03.1995 and his probation was also declared vide proceedings, dated 02.04.1997. Learned counsel had further contended that during the service of the 1st respondent, the appellant-University has not taken any steps to cancel his appointment. Learned counsel had further contended that the issue as to whether the appointment of the 1st respondent was illegal and irregular was considered by this Court while extending ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1165_2023 the revised pay scales in W.P.No.13116 of 2011, dated 09.06.2017, and learned Single Judge has categorically held that 'having regard to the fact that such appointments were made in the year 1995 and even before such appointments, considerable service was rendered by the petitioners, at this distance of time, on the said alleged irregularity in the selection process, the appointments made in the year 1995 cannot be declared as invalid, and deny the pay revision benefits'. When once this Court has held that appointment of the 1st respondent cannot be declared as invalid, again the appellant-University is taking the very same stand and denying the pension and pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent is contrary to law. Taking note of all the factors into consideration, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in favour of the 1st respondent. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view ::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1165_2023 that appointment of the 1st respondent was made in the year 1995, his probation was also declared and he also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2020. In the interregnum, the appellant-University has also not taken any steps to recall the appointment of the 1st respondent alleged to have been made way back in the year 1995. As long as the appointment of the 1st respondent is not recalled, the question of denying the pension and pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent does not arise. Moreover, the issue as to whether the appointment of the 1st respondent is illegal and irregular was considered by this Court on earlier occasion in W.P.No.13116 of 2011 and the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in favour of the 1st respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
::7:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ____________________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date:03.01.2024 Prat/rkk ::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_1165_2023 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Appeal No.1165 of 2023 Date:03.01.2024 prat