Dasari Seetha Naidu, ... vs The Govt.Of A.P.,Hr.Edn.,Hyd., 3 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3114 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                  W.V.M.P.No.2634 of 2017
                              In
                  W.P.M.P.No.6424 of 2016
                              In
                     WP.No.5029 of 2016
O R D E R:

At the request of Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned

counsel for the vacate stay petitioner, the interlocutory

application has been taken up for hearing.

Learned counsel stressed that the interim order granted

in this case has to be vacated. He has filed the vacate stay

petition, expressed his urgency and therefore, this Court took

up the same for argument. Ms.P.Akhila Naidu appeared for

Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the first

respondent/petitioner in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

present petitioner has retired from the services of the

respondent No.4 after working in its B.Ed college in

Vijayawada. As the UGC scales were not paid to the

petitioner and the retirement benefits were also not paid as

per the UGC norms, the writ petition is filed. The interim

order was granted directing the respondent No.4-vacate stay

petitioner to calculate the pension of the petitioner as per the

A.P. Revised Pension Rules.

This order is sought to be vacated. The arguments in

this case were lengthy and elaborate. However, this Court is

conscious of the fact that it is disposing only the interlocutory

application and not the main writ petition. Hence, for the

purpose of determining the interim application only the

hearing was held and the order is passed. The opinion

expressed are all „prima facie‟ opinions only.

Learned counsel for the first respondent/petitioner drew

the attention of this Court to the norms and standards of

B.Ed., education; for awarding B.Ed. degree etc., which are

filed with the additional memo. She points out that academic

staff of the institution shall be paid scale of pay as prescribed

by the UGC from time to time. She also points out that

similar issues between the respondent and other lecturers

arose in the State of Kerala, and the same resulted in the

filing of original petitions before the Kerala High Court.

Relying upon OP.No.7818 of 2001 which is an order passed

by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court and the

order in W.A.No.1625 of 2009 in O.P.No.32994 of 2000 which

is an order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High

Court, the learned counsel argues that the respondents are

bound to pay salary as per the UGC norms. She points out

that Hon‟ble Supreme Court also did not interfere against the

orders passed in Writ Appeal No.1625 of 2009 and dismissed

the Special Leave Appeal No.30048 of 2014. Similarly,

against OP.No.7818 of 2001 also, the SLP is dismissed

according to the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, she

argues that this Court also should pass a similar order.

Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of the A.P.High

Court in Md.Ghouse v. The Correspondent, Dakshina

Bharat Hindi Pracharasabha1, learned counsel argues that

the 4th respondent is functioning as a State and is amenable

to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. She points out that the

UGC guidelines were also considered in the judgment and

more particularly at para 13. Since the service of the

petitioner was in the State of Andhra Pradesh, learned

counsel argues that this Court has the jurisdiction to pass

necessary orders and that the respondent is amenable to the

writ jurisdiction. It is her contention that the "jurisdiction

clause" on which the respondents rely is not applicable to the

petitioner or the petitioner‟s case and that therefore the writ

is maintainable in this Court and that the interim order

granted should not be vacated.

In reply to this, Sri Prabhakar Sripada argues

vehemently that the prayer in the writ petition is not clear

and is ambiguous. He also points out that a declaration has

not sought before seeking a direction that the petitioner is

entitled to the UGC norms. He also raises a question about

the manner in which the interim order was passed by the

learned single Judge and argues that the A.P. Pension Rules

are not applicable and without considering the same, the

learned single Judge made the A.P.Pension Rules applicable.

Manu/AP/1097/2001

According to him, nobody in the services of the 4 th respondent

is claiming UGC scales. He argues that UGC scales are not

applicable to the people working with the 4th respondent and

that A.P. Pension Rules are also not applicable. Therefore, he

submits that the order passed is incorrect. He also argues

that the petitioner had already approached the Madras High

Court by filing W.P.No.31789 of 2014 to enhance her age of

retirement. Relying upon the Service Rules of the 4th

respondent, learned counsel argues that as per Rule 24(i) the

Court having the jurisdiction for redressal of any employees

the dispute/grievance is only the Court in Chennai. Relying

upon the use of the word „only‟ in this clause, learned counsel

argues that it specifically restricts the jurisdiction to the

Courts at Chennai. Learned counsel also cited case law to

show when such clauses are there, no other Court can

exercise jurisdiction. He also argues that the 4th respondent

is not a State and is not discharging State functions and so is

not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He also

argues relying upon case law that fixing of scale of pay etc.,

are executive functions and that the Court should not

interfere in such matters. Learned counsel therefore argues

that the interim order granted should be vacated.

In rejoinder, Ms.Akhila Naidu argues that the

jurisdiction clause on which the petitioner relies upon is not

applicable and that the case law cited by her makes it clear

that UGC scales are paid. She also relies upon G.O.Ms.No.14

to argue that learned single Judge did not commit any

mistake in adopting the various benefits to the petitioner.

COURT: This Court as mentioned earlier is only dealing

with the interim application and the prayer to vacate the

interim order. The Division Bench of this Court in the

judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner

was dealing with the case of the Dakshina Bharatha Hindu

Prachara Sabha which is the present respondent No.4. The

Division Bench clearly held (after considering the law on the

subject) that the Sabha is performing the primary sovereign

functions of the State and is therefore amenable to the writ

jurisdiction.

The two judgments of the Kerala High Court which are

relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also

clearly held that UGC scales are payable to the teachers

working under the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is a

party before the Kerala High Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme

Court of India also did not interfere with these orders.

Though the orders may not be binding on this Court, they

have good persuasive value. The petitioner was working in

the B.Ed. college of the respondents. The norms and

standards of B.Ed. which are filed as material papers clearly

show that the academic staff of the institution including part

time staff shall have to be paid such salary as may be

prescribed at the UGC/University from time to time.

Therefore, this Court has to hold that the contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is

not a State or that UGC scales are not applicable is not prima

facie correct.

Coming to the issue of prayer being made and the

interim order being granted, this Court notices that the

learned single Judge relied upon G.O.Ms.No.14 while passing

the said order. G.O.Ms.No.14 is also filed as a material

paper. It is specifically asserted in the writ affidavit that the

petitioner is entitled to pension under the A.P. Revised

Pension Rules. G.O.Ms.No.14 is also specifically referred to

in the writ affidavit also. It applies to all colleges receiving

grants and where UGC scales are implemented. The G.O.

itself mentions that State rules shall apply in respect of

pension/gratuity etc., for those „drawing‟ UGC pay scales.

This issue is not specifically answered in the vacate stay

petition that has been filed. But it is asserted that the

respondents have their own regulations and terms of

appointment. Therefore, it is asserted that the petitioner can

get the retirement benefits in accordance with the Rules

framed by the 4th respondent only. These service rules are

filed as annexure to this affidavit. Rule 2 of the Service Rules

clearly states that they are applicable to the "post graduate

and research complex of the Dakshina Bharatha Hindu

Prachara Sabha" and all those who may be appointed in the

post herein after these are come into effect from 01.02.2010.

The applicability of these rules to the case of the petitioner

who has been working from 1990 and in the B.Ed., college is

also a matter to be examined further. Prima facie, this Court

is of the opinion that the said service rules are not applicable

to the petitioner who joined in 1990 and that G.O.Ms.No.14 is

applicable.

As far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, Rule 24

(i) of the Rules clearly states that for redressal of any dispute,

the employees can approach the Court at Chennai only. The

case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner

is beyond doubt. When such clear language is used, only

that Court can have the jurisdiction. But the issue raised in

this case is whether these Rules are applicable to the

petitioner at all. As mentioned earlier, the rules prima facie

appear to apply to the "Post Graduate and research complex".

Apart from that, the issue whether the extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 can be curtailed

by a clause in the rules (if it is applicable) is also to be

considered. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon Shanti Devi v. Union of India and others2. In para

32 of this judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that

retired employee who is receiving pension cannot be asked to

go to another Court to file a writ petition. He had a cause of

action for filing a writ petition in the Patna Court. It was held

2020 (10) SCC 766

that for a retired employee convenience to prosecute the case

at the place where he belongs to and was getting pension.

Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner retired at Vijayawada

within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the issue of

jurisdiction is also a debatable issue and this Court cannot at

this stage hold on the basis of the available material that this

Court does not have the jurisdiction.

Hence, after considering all the submissions made by

both the learned counsel, the case and the material produced

etc., this Court has to hold that it does not find any reason to

vacate the interim order that has been passed by this Court

on 20.01.2017.

This WVMP is therefore dismissed. It is reiterated that

all the opinions expressed/findings are for the purpose of

deciding this application only and are not final opinions.

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 19.08.2021 KLP