Telangana High Court
M.Veeresham vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.40064 of 2016 and
Writ Petition (Tr) No.6443 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.40064 of 2016 has been filed to declare the proceedings of respondent No.1 bearing Memo No.7860/Emp- Vig/A2/2011, dated 15.03.2016 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner as was done in cases of similarly situated persons vide G.O.Ms.No.26, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (Emp) Department dated 03.05.2011 and release the Annual Grade increments due to him and other monetary benefits based on such refixation, by granting special promotional pay scales I & II.
W.P.(Tr).No.6443 of 2017 has been filed to declare that the applicant is entitled for regularization of his services in the category if Attender with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Mr.S.Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner is both the writ petitions and learned Government NVSK, J 2 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 Pleader for Services - I appearing on behalf of respondents in both the writ petitions.
3. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions are same and are filed by the same petitioner, these writ petitions are disposed by this common order.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as trainee on consolidated pay in M/s.Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited, Patancheru during the year 1976. On completion of 240 days of service, he was absorbed as regular employee and he worked till closure of M/s.Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited. Thereafter, services of the applicant had been retrenched, but no retrenchment compensation was paid. As the petitioner has completed 15 years, petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent/authorities requesting to absorb him in Government Department, as the Government issued certain guidelines for absorption of surplus/retrenched employees of Public Sector Undertaking into Government Departments. Thereafter, respondent No.3 considered the representation of NVSK, J 3 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 the petitioner and issued proceedings dated 04.08.1995 for appointment of petitioner as Attender and he was allotted to respondent No.2, thereafter respondent No.3 issued proceedings on 07.08.1995, appointing the petitioner as Attender and accordingly he joined and by now petitioner had completed more than 25 years of service in the office of respondent No.5 and prior to that he had already 15 years of service.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that nearly 200 retrenched employees of Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited were absorbed in Panchayat Raj Department and appears to have been further promoted.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner's services was unjustifiably terminated vide proceedings of respondent No.5 dated 14.09.1995. Aggrieved over the same, petitioner has approached Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal vide O.A.No.6302 of 1995 and the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.03.1996 has stayed the said proceedings of respondent No.5 and thereafter applicant has been working by discharging NVSK, J 4 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 his duties as Attender continuously. However, O.A. was dismissed on 05.10.1999 but the petitioner was not informed about the same and the petitioner was allowed to continue which was presumed by the petitioner that the termination order dated 14.09.1995 was deemed to have been revoked. In view of the same, applicant prays that he is entitled for regularization of service as Attender since he has completed 25 years of service without any complaint whatsoever. It is further submitted that petitioner is drawing regular pay scales and also revised pay scales of 2003 is applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that respondents are threatening the petitioner for termination of the services, aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1530 of 2006 before the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted an order of status quo vide order dated 16.03.2006 and petitioner was allowed to continue in service conditionally for 14 days.
7. A separate counter affidavit have been filed on behalf respondents in which it is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Attender vide proceedings dated 07.08.1995 and NVSK, J 5 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 was posted in Government Industrial Training Institute in Old City, Hyderabad and subsequently on the ground that he was appointed in contravention to Act 2 of 1994, he was terminated vide proceedings dated 14.09.1995. Aggrieved by the termination, petitioner filed O.A.6302 of 1996 and the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal granted stay and the petitioner continued in service till 18.03.2006 whereas O.A. was dismissed on 18.03.2006, consequently petitioner was terminated vide proceedings dated 18.03.2006. Aggrieved by the action of Commissioner, Employment and Training, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1530 of 2006, duly suppressing the fact of O.A.No.6302 of 1996. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted an order of status quo vide order dated 16.03.2006 and petitioner was allowed to continue in service conditionally for 14 days. Thereafter, respondent No.2 therein has filed counter in O.A.No.1530 of 2006 and Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal has extended the status quo order until further orders and no orders have been passed till date.
8. It is further submitted in the counter that as per G.O.Ms.No.26 LET&F (Emp) Department dated 03.05.2011, NVSK, J 6 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 the Government has permitted the Department to re-fix the pay of 10 Nos. erstwhile employees of Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited who were absorbed in Employment and Training Department to effect the revised pay scales 1986 on par with benefits given to the employees absorbed in Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department. However, in G.O.Ms.No.234, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated 01.05.1993, the name of the petitioner was not included as per G.O.Ms.No.26, as petitioner was terminated from service and that he is continuing in service based upon the interim order dated 29.03.2006, as such the decision not to include the petitioner name in the G.O. is correct.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations dated 13.06.2011, 12.07.2011 and 12.09.2011 to the then RDD (A), Hyderabad requesting to extend the benefits on par with employees to M/s.Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited, Hyderabad. Thereafter, petitioner has filed O.A.No.7913 of 2011 seeking direction to the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant as was done in cases of similarly situated NVSK, J 7 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 persons and to release annual grade increments and other monetary benefits due to him. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2011 disposed of the said O.A., directing the respondents therein to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 13.06.2011, 12.07.2011 and 12.09.2011 and pass appropriate orders as per Rules and instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 03.05.2011 within a period of eight (8) weeks and the said O.A. was disposed of.
10. Thereafter, the then Regional Deputy Director (A), Hyderabad instructed respondent No.3 to regularize the service of petitioner, who is in the office of Subordinate ITI, Old City, Hyderabad and implement G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 03.05.2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner was already terminated from service and is only continuing in service based upon the interim order dated 29.03.2006 and the case is pending against his termination and respondent No.2 herein has cancelled the order issued by the then RDD (A), Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 03.08.2015 as the order was issued without examining the eligibility. Further respondent No.2 also issued orders to cancel the pay fixation NVSK, J 8 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 proceedings issued by respondent No.3, since instructions given were not correct.
11. As regards the representations of the petitioner dated 13.06.2011, 12.07.2011 and 12.09.2011, it is informed that petitioner was already terminated from service, however, continued in service based upon the interim order dated 29.03.2006 and that the petitioner has now retired from the service on 31.02.2017. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 for release of General Provident Fund for an amount of Rs.5,71,000/- pending from the year 2017.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case referred to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed Special Leave Petition filed by the State questioning the orders passed by the Chairman directing the respondents to pay pensionary benefits to an Ad-hoc employee who was 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187 NVSK, J 9 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 retired after rendering 30 years of service and the same is extracted hereunder:
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.
In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.
Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
13. In the case on hand, the petitioner was terminated from service vide proceedings No.C/153/95 dated 14.09.1995 on the ground that he was appointed in contravention to Act NVSK, J 10 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 2/1994. Thereafter, petitioner has filed O.A.No.6302/1996 contesting the dismissal. The Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal granted stay on 18.03.1996 and the petitioner continued till 18.03.2006 and the said O.A.No.6302 of 1996 was dismissed on 16.02.2000 in favour of Department and consequently petitioner was terminated from service on 18.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said action, petitioner has filed O.A.No.1530 of 2006 suppressing the facts of O.A.No.6302 of 1996 wherein interim order of status quo was issued on 16.03.2006 and he was allowed to continue in service conditionally for a period of 14 days. However, respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 29.03.2006 extended the interim orders until further orders.
14. The main grievance of the petitioner is for re-fixation of service, however, the petitioner has continued in service based on the order of status quo and retired from service on 31.10.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Talsibhai NVSK, J 11 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 Dhanjibhai Patel (cited supra), pensionary benefits may be extended to the petitioner.
15. In the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2, where the petitioner therein also suppressed the material facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:
"In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1 K.B. 486, and observed:
"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full 2 (2010) 2 SCC 114 NVSK, J 12 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.
The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."
16. It is to be noted that O.A.No.6302 of 1995 was dismissed for default on 16.02.2000, however, the petitioner has been allowed to continue and the petitioner was under the presumption that termination order dated 14.09.1995 was deemed to have been revoked and completed nearly about 25 years of service. No steps were taken to revive the said O.A., as such the submission of the petitioner that the termination order dated 14.09.1995 was presumed to be revoked cannot be the basis for the reliefs claimed by the petitioner.
17. That apart, the petitioner continued service in terms of the status quo orders dated 16.03.2006 passed in NVSK, J 13 W.P. Nos.40064 of 2016 and 6443 of 2017 O.A.No.1530 of 2006 which was extended until further orders. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner filed O.A.No.1530 of 2006 duly suppressing the facts of O.A.No.6302 of 1996. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the petitioner would not apply to the facts of the present case on hand. The petitioner obtained the interim order dated 16.03.2006 in O.A.No.1530 of 2006 by way of suppression of material facts and continued in service without disclosing true, complete and correct facts.
18. In view of the same, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in W.P.No.40064 of 2016 and W.P.(Tr).No.6443 of 2017 are not sustainable and cannot be granted. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 06.03.2024 Mrm