Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Secretary And Correspondent, vs P. Srinivasa Rao on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
[[
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1677 and 1758 of 2018
(Taken up through video conferencing)
W.A.No.1677 of 2018:
The Secretary & Correspondent,
Lions Montessori High School,
Pedanandipadu, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh.
.. Appellant
Versus
P. Srinivasa Rao,
S/o. Mastan Rao,
R/o. Bodawoda Post, Parchur Mandal,
Prakasam District and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. A. Rajendra Babu
Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 : GP for School Education
W.A.No.1758 of 2018:
The Secretary & Correspondent,
Lions Montessori High School,
Pedanandipadu, Guntur District,
Andhra Pradesh.
.. Appellant
Versus
P. Srinivasa Rao,
S/o. Mastan Rao,
R/o. Bodawoda Post, Parchur Mandal,
Prakasam District and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. A. Rajendra Babu
Counsel for respondents 2 & 3 : GP for School Education
2 HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.Nos.1677 & 1758 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 03.02.2021
per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ
Heard Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, and
the learned Government Pleader for School Education.
These writ appeals are directed against two separate orders, both
dated 20.09.2018 in W.P.Nos.25334 of 2004 and 18263 of 2000, passed by
a learned single Judge of this Court. The Secretary & Correspondent, Lions
Montessori High School, Pedanandipadu, Guntur District, is the appellant
herein.
Respondent No.1 herein, the writ petitioner in both the writ petitions,
was appointed as Record Assistant in Lions Montessori High School,
Pedanandipadu, Guntur District, in pursuance of Notification dated
20.07.1994. The case presented by him in W.P.No.18263 of 2000 was that
he was paid salary of Rs.650/- per month against the salary amount of
Rs.2,300/-, which was recorded in the acquittance register, and as he was
not allowed to continue in the said post and was also not paid salaries, he
had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.23779 of 1999, wherein, by
order dated 11.02.2000, this Court had directed the school authorities to
allow him to join duty as Record Assistant. Pursuant to the said order, he
was allowed to join duty in the month of February, 2000, but was not paid
salary even thereafter. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service on
31.07.2002, which prompted him to file W.P.No.25334 of 2004.
By the order passed in W.P.No.18263 of 2000, the learned single
Judge directed payment of arrears of salary to the writ petitioner from
25.02.2000, i.e., from the date of his joining duty, till 31.07.2002, which is
the date of his removal, at the rate of Rs.2,300/- per month along with
3 HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.Nos.1677 & 1758 of 2018
interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till the
date of payment.
So far as removal of the writ petitioner is concerned, learned single
Judge, at paragraph 7 of the order in W.P.No.25334 of 2004, observed that
removal of the writ petitioner is contrary to decisions of this Court in
V.D.M.L. Kalyani v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
reported in 2012 (6) ALD 292 and Priyadarshini College of
Engineering and Technology, Nellore District v. A. Judson and
others reported in 2016 (2) ALD 655, wherein it was held that the
mandate of Section 79(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for
short, 'the Act') applies to all teaching and non-teaching staff employed in a
private institution irrespective of the fact that whether such employee was
appointed in aided and unaided post and that Section 79 of the Act
mandates obtaining of prior approval from the competent authority before
termination of an employee. As the said procedure was not followed, the
learned single Judge held that the removal of the writ petitioner from
service was illegal and contrary to law and accordingly, directed the
appellant to allow the writ petitioner to join duty and to pay him salary from
the date of his termination till the date of allowing him to duty, at the rate
of Rs.2,300/- per month along with interest at 9% per annum.
Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant, has not
disputed the applicability of the Act. He has also not disputed that prior
approval of the competent authority was not taken before removal of the
writ petitioner from service.
In that view of the matter, the order of removal was not sustainable,
as rightly held by the learned single Judge.
Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel, however, submits that the
learned single Judge had committed error in directing payment of
4 HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.Nos.1677 & 1758 of 2018
Rs.2,300/- per month to the writ petitioner, without there being any basis,
inasmuch as he was paid salary of Rs.650/- per month as per his
entitlement. Learned counsel also questioned the grant of interest at the
rate of 9% per annum.
We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel.
The learned single Judge observed that the writ petitioner was entitled to
payment of Rs.2,300/- per month, as recorded in the acquittance register,
but the same was not paid to him. Though the acquittance register was
directed to be produced before the Court, the appellant did not produce the
same and it is on the basis thereof that the learned single Judge passed the
orders directing payment of arrears of salary to the writ petitioner at the
rate of Rs.2,300/- per month, for the periods as indicated in the orders,
along with interest at 9% per annum.
Considering the matter in its entirety, we find no grounds to interfere
with the orders impugned.
Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
IBL
5 HCJ & CPK,J
W.A.Nos.1677 & 1758 of 2018
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL Nos.1677 and 1758 of 2018
(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 02.02.2021
IBL
