Telangana High Court
P.Jaya Prakash, vs The Government Of Telangana, on 19 March, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
W.A.No. 1138 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (Tr) No. 2700 of 2017 dt.11-04-2023.
2. Heard Smt. K. Rajyalakshmi, learned Counsel for the appellants and the larned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents.
3. It has been contended by the appellants that they have responded to D.S.C. 1989 Notification for the post of Special Grade Teachers (SGTs) and the appellants, after undergoing regular selection process, were selected for appointment to the post of SGTs. However, for various reasons, the respondents could not give appointment orders to the respondents on the ground of various litigations which are pending before the Tribunal and High Court. Finally, the respondents were pleased to issue Government Memo on 30-04-2008 wherein the appellants were appointed as SGTs.
2 AKS,J & RRN,J W.A.No. 1138 of 2023
4. The grievance of the appellants was that though they were selected in pursuance to the DSC 1989 selections, they were not treated on par with such of those persons, who were selected in pursuance to the DSC-1989. The appellants have submitted a detailed representation to the respondents to count their service from 01-08-1996 to 12-07-2008 as it was done in the case of Sri M. Ratnakar and 18 others who have approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.5233 of 2004, and the Tribunal vide orders dt.21-11-2007 was pleased to direct the respondents to appoint Mr. M.Ratnakar and others as SGTs by extending the benefits as it was done in the case of persons, who were appointed during 1996 and the appellants were also identically situated in their place and they also sought to extend the relief as it was done in the case of Mr. M.Ratnakar and others. But the respondents have rejected the case of the appellants vide proceedings dt.24-03-2014 without appreciating that the appellants are also identically situated with that of Mr. M.Ratnakar and others. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. During pendency of the said O.A., the Tribunal itself got abolished for the State of Telangana, then the O.A. which was pending before the Tribunal was transferred to the High Court in the form of Transfer Writ Petition No.2700 of 2017 and the learned Single Judge 3 AKS,J & RRN,J W.A.No. 1138 of 2023 of this Court was pleased to dismiss the said Writ petition without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. and others v. B. Aswathama and others 1, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that if the appointment orders are not given on time, then that is not the fault of employee but that is the fault of employer and with those observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed confirming the orders of the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the rejection orders dt.24-03-2014 and directed the respondents to re-examine the case of the appellants for extending service benefits such as automatic advancement scheme and other pensionary benefits by duly taking into account the fact that the appellants were recruited in pursuance to the DSC 1989.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, had contended that though the appellants have been selected in pursuance to the DSC 1989 selection, since the appointment orders were given only in the year 2008, the question of considering their case from 1996 onwards would not arise. 1 2022 (6) ALD 573 (TS) (DB) 4 AKS,J & RRN,J W.A.No. 1138 of 2023
7. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side is of the considered view that the appellants were selected in pursuance to DSC-1989 and persons who got selected along with the appellants were given appointment orders in 1996 and for the reasons best known to the appellants, the appointment letters were belatedly issued to the appellants only in the year 2008. Therefore, it is not the fault of appellants as they were not given appointment orders in-time. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellants for grant of automatic advancement scheme benefit by taking into account the fact that the appellants were recruited in pursuance to DSC-1989 along with persons who were recruited along with such persons who were appointed during 1996 and the learned Single Judge ought to have considered for granting relief in favour of the appellants. Since the appellants are similarly situated to that of Mr. M.Ratnakar and others on the ground of discrimination, the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered. Therefore, the orders of the learned Single Judge are liable to set aside and accordingly they are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellants for counting their service from 1996 to 2008 for the purpose of the benefit 5 AKS,J & RRN,J W.A.No. 1138 of 2023 by extending automatic advancement scheme and other service benefits.
8. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Dt. 19.03.2024 Kvr