A Sitaram vs The Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3213 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                   WRIT PETITION No.8959 of 2021

                       (Through video conferencing)


A. Sitaram, S/o Late A. Pullaiah, aged about 64 years,
R/o 6-2-741, Ram Nagar, Ananthapuram.
                                                          ... Petitioner

                                  Versus


The Registrar (General)
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi, Guntur District and others.
                                                          ...Respondents



Counsel for the Petitioner        :       Mr. N. Ranga Reddy

Counsel for respondent No.1       :   Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 :    Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy



Date of hearing                   : 30.07.2021

Date of Judgment                  : 27.08.2021



                                 ORDER

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent

No.1 and Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

HCJ & NJS,J

W.P.No.8959 of 2021

2. The writ petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation as a Superintendent, Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Penukonda, Ananthapuram District. Subsequently, through a notification

in Dis.No.12/2017/DLSA, dated 03.01.2017 issued by respondent No.3,

applications were invited from the retired judicial employees for

appointment to the post of Head Clerk, Typist-cum-Assistant and Steno-

cum-Typist to work in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ananthapuram and

pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner had submitted his

application for the post of Head Clerk. By order, dated 31.03.2017, the

Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuram, had appointed

the petitioner as a Head Clerk. Subsequently, the services of the

petitioner were extended for a period of two years vide order dated

02.04.2018 and again, extended till attaining the age of 65 years i.e.,

05.07.2021.

3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in not

extending the contract appointment of the petitioner upto the age of 69

years is arbitrary, and accordingly, he prays for a writ of mandamus to

direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.02.2021

and to continue his contract appointment until he completes the age of 69

years.

4. Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits

that the notification dated 03.01.2017 prescribes that any person, who

has completed the age of 18 years and has not completed the age of 65

years, was eligible to apply and that the period of contract/service will be

one year to start with and the said contract may be extended for further

period, if necessary. He submits that in similar circumstances, the

HCJ & NJS,J

W.P.No.8959 of 2021

Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in

W.P.No.16605 of 2016 (P. Subrahmanyam Pillai v. The

Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Chittoor) had

directed the respondents therein to continue the petitioner therein as

Head Clerk irrespective of the fact that he has completed the age of 65

years. It is also submitted that in another case i.e., in W.P.No.5458 of

2018 (S. Sai Krishna Murthy, Head Clerk, Permanent Lok Adalat

for Public Utility Services, Ongole, Prakasam District), erstwhile

High Court of Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana

and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 20.02.2018, disposed of

the writ petition with a direction to continue the petitioner therein to work

in Permanent Lok Adalat, Ongole, till he attains the age of 69 years or till

notification extending the age limit is issued, whichever is earlier, subject

to satisfaction of performance of his duties. As the petitioner is a similarly

placed person like the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16605 of 2016 and 5458 of

2018, direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of

the petitioners in terms of the above judgments, he contends.

5. Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent

No.1, submits that the present case is covered by the judgment of the

Division Bench in the case of P. Subrahmanyam Pillai (supra) as in that

case, the petitioner was working as Head clerk in Permanent Lok Adalat

for Public Utility Services, Chittoor, and in the instant case, the petitioner

had been appointed as Head Clerk in the Permanent Lok Adalat,

Ananthapuram.

6. Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.2 and 3, by filing a memo, had placed before the Court the

HCJ & NJS,J

W.P.No.8959 of 2021

proceedings dated 03.07.2021 issued by the Chairman-cum-Principal

District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Anantapuramu.

7. At this stage, it is apposite to note relevant portion of the order in

Dis.No.123 of 2021 dated 03.07.2021, which reads as follows:

"The Chairman-cum-Prl. District Judge, District Legal

Services Authority, Ananthapuramu is pleaded to pass

following order:

The contract of Sri A. Sitaram, Head Clerk (Contract

Basis), Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services,

Ananthapuramu is terminated with effect from 05-07-2021

A.N. as he has attained the age of 65 years, subject to result

of W.P.No.8959/2021 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh."

8. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 31.03.2017 goes to

show that the appointment made on contract basis is liable to be

terminated without assigning any reasons. Clause (xii) of General

Instructions of the said notification provides that on appointment, the

employees shall enter into an agreement with the Chairman-cum-Principal

District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuramu, initially

for a period of one year, subject to renewal for a further period from time

to time at the discretion of the Appointing Authority and subject to

continuance of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ananthapuramu. In the case

of P. Subrahmanyam Pillai (supra), it was noted as follows:

"It is an admitted fact that no specific rules have been

framed governing service conditions of the employees of the

HCJ & NJS,J

W.P.No.8959 of 2021

permanent Lok Adalats, who are re-appointed after their

retirement. The very notification referred to above inviting

applications clearly shows that the appointment is purely

temporary and contractual and that the tenure of the

appointee is subject to renewal once in every year.

Condition Nos.1 and 2 of the advertisement were

incorporated by way of Clause Nos.5 and 7 in the

appointment order of the petitioner which reads as under:

"5. The tenure of appointment will be for one

year and further period will be subject to renewal in

future.

6.....

7. The appointment of the individual is purely

on temporary and contract basis."

In the absence of any statutory provision or executive

order, prescribing the age of retirement or minimum tenure

for an employee, the terms mentioned in the advertisement

and also the appointment order govern his right. A proper

analysis of the advertisement and the appointment order of

the petitioner would leave us in no doubt that his tenure is

purely temporary under a contract and that respondent No.1

is free not to renew the contract appointment of the

petitioner beyond one year period."

9. It was further observed as follows:

"A perusal of the impugned order shows that the

District Judge has misread the advertisement and formed a

wrong opinion that since the petitioner will be completing 65

HCJ & NJS,J

W.P.No.8959 of 2021

years on 31-05-2016, he shall retire. He appears to have

formed this erroneous opinion based on the age criterion

mentioned in the notification, which says that a retired

Junior Assistant/Typist should be below 65 years of age.

This stipulation, in our understanding, is to the effect that

any person, who has not completed the age of 65 years, is

eligible for being considered and appointed and he could be

continued beyond 65 years also on an year to year basis, if

the appointing authority is satisfied with his services. At any

point of time, if the appointing authority feels that the

services of the employee shall be put an end to, it shall be

free to do so on the expiry of the contract tenure.

On the analysis as above, the Writ Petition is disposed

of with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider whether

to continue the petitioner as Head Clerk irrespective of the

fact that he has completed the age of 65 years based on his

performance. If respondent No.1 feels satisfied with the

petitioner's performance, he shall be free to extend the

latter's services further and this process may be repeated

year after year till respondent No.1 feels that the services of

the petitioner are no longer required."

10. Since the learned counsel for the parties agree that this case is

squarely covered by the judgment rendered in P. Subrahmanyam Pillai

(supra), this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment and

order passed in P. Subrahmanyam Pillai providing that if the Chairman,

District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuram, feels satisfied with the

petitioner's performance, he shall be free to extend the services of the

HCJ & NJS,J

W.P.No.8959 of 2021

petitioner further notwithstanding that the petitioner has completed 65

years of age. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                         NINALA JAYASURYA, J

                                                                          Nn