J. Jagadeeswara Naidu, vs The Principal District Judge,
2021 Latest Caselaw 898 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                      Writ Petition No.22024 of 2020

                           (Through video conferencing)

Jagadeeswara Naidu, S/o L.Narasimhulu Naidu,
aged about 65 years, Occ : Working as
Head Clerk/Superintendent on contract basis,
VIII Additional District Judge's Court/
Fast Track Court, at Chittoor, R/o Door No.20-421,
Annaswamy Modali Street, Mittoor,
Chittoor Town & District. Pin : 517 001.                  ..    Petitioner


                                     Versus

The Principal District Judge,
District Court Compound, New Complex,
D.No.23-96, Industrial Estate, Chittoor and another       ..    Respondents


Counsel for the Petitioner                    :   Mr. Gopal Rao
                                                  Gandrakota

Counsel for the Respondents                   :   Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar

Dates of Hearing                              :   06.01.2021 & 05.02.2021

Date of Pronouncement                         :      .02.2021


                                     ORDER

(Per C.Praveen Kumar, J)

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of

Mandamus directing the respondents to retain and continue the petitioner

as Head Clerk in the office of the VIII Additional District Judge, Fast Track

Court, Chittoor, till he attains the age of 69 years, in view of the

proceedings, dated 23.04.2011, issued by the High Court of Telangana

and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

2. The petitioner herein retired as Superintendent from the Court of

the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Chittoor, on

31.01.2014. Thereafter, on 03.04.2014, a notification was issued by the

office of the District Judge, Chittoor, inviting applications for the post of

Head Clerk in the Fast Track Court, Chittoor, to work on contract basis, at

a consolidated pay of Rs.14,860/- per month. The eligibility criteria being

that the applicant must have retired from service in the cadre of

Administrative Officer/Superintendent in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service

and not completed 65 years of age and the candidate must have at least a

year to complete 65 years of age by the date of appointment. As the

petitioner claims to be fully qualified and eligible for appointment as Head

Clerk, made an application to District Judge, Chittoor, for appointment as

Head Clerk. Vide proceedings L.Dis.No.3753, dated 30.04.2014, the

petitioner was selected, re-appointed and posted as Head Clerk in the said

Court and was working there since then on contract basis. The material

on record also shows that petitioner has entered into an agreement to

work on contract basis, which is being renewed every year. Aggrieved by

the action of the respondents in contemplating to terminate the petitioner

on 06.01.2021, on his completion of 65 years, the instant Writ Petition

came to be filed.

3. It is urged by Sri Gopal Rao Gandrakota, learned counsel for the

petitioner, that in view of the circular issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of

the combined High Court on 23.04.2011 and having regard to the orders

passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.15923 of 2014, dated

14.07.2016, and in W.P.M.P. No.35730 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 28864

of 2016, dated 27.08.2016, the service of the petitioner should be

continued till 69 years. He took us through the said judgments, G.Os. and

the circular issued to substantiate his submission.

4. On the other hand, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondents, relied upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in

W.P.No.16652 of 2020, dated 18.09.2020 and W.P.No.18234 of 2020,

dated 06-11-2020, in support of his plea.

5. In reply, counsel for the petitioner would contend that the ratio laid

down in W.P.No.16652 of 2020 would not apply to the facts of the instant

case, as it was a case where the petitioner sought extension of service

beyond 69 years of age.

6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner is

entitled for the relief claimed by him?

7. It is not in dispute that Fast Track Courts were established in the

State in a scheme floated by the Government of India in 2001 and few of

them are continuing even now as regular courts. Functioning of the

courts is being extended from time to time. The scheme itself provided

staff pattern for these Courts, apart from the Presiding Officer, who

usually is a serving Judge, in case of Courts designated as District Courts,

by an officer in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge and in case of

Senior Civil Judge Courts, an officer of the same cadre. Staff pattern

provided for these courts included the post of Head Clerk. All these posts

are of contractual service with consolidated pay per month.

8. As seen from the record, a notification, dated 03.04.2014, came to

be issued by the office of the District Judge, Chittoor. The relevant

portion of the notification, dated 03.04.2014 reads as under :

"Eligibility :- Must have retired from service in the Cadres of Administrative Officer/Superintendent in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Services and not completed 65 years of age and the candidates having at least one year of age to complete 65 years of age by the date of appointment."

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the post of Head Clerk and

was appointed vide proceedings dated 30.04.2014 in the Court of the VIII

Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Chittoor, on contract basis.

The terms and conditions incorporated in the order would reveal that the

individual shall enter into an agreement of contract on such terms and

conditions, initially for a period of one year and submit the same to

District Court through proper channel. The individuals were informed that

tenure of appointment will be up to 30.04.2015 or till necessity ceases or

until further orders, whichever is earlier. The re-appointments made were

purely temporary and liable to be terminated at any time without

assigning any reasons. It would be relevant to extract relevant clauses in

the notification, which are as under :

"3. The individuals shall enter into an agreement of contract on such terms and conditions initially for a period of one year i.e., up to 30.04.2015 and submit the same to District Court through proper channel.

5. The individuals are informed that tenure of appointment will be up to 30.04.2015 or till necessity ceases or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

8. The re-appointments are purely temporary and are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons."

9. The notification, dated 03.04.2014, is referred to in the order of

initial appointment of the petitioner as Head Clerk, Chittoor, dated

30.04.2014. This notification is the basis to consider the eligibility criteria

for the post of Head Clerk in the Fast Track Court and the petitioner is

bound by the contents of the notification therein. From the endorsement

made in the notification, dated 03.04.2014, it is clear that once the

petitioner completes 65 years of age, he is not eligible to be continued as

Head Clerk in the Fast Track Court. Though a reading of the eligibility

criteria in the notification dated 03.04.2014 clearly shows that he must

have retired from service in the cadre of Administrative Service in A.P.

Judicial Ministerial Services and not completed the age of 65 years and he

should have at least one year of age to complete 65 years by the date of

appointment, it does not by itself mean that he can be continued beyond

the age of 65 years. What it means is that if he is appointed after

retirement at the age of 60 years, he can be continued till the age of 65

years by entering into the yearly agreement and in case if he is to be

appointed later, there should be at least minimum of one year of service

or in other words, a year to complete 65 years of age. Similar such view

was also taken by this Court in the order dated 06.11.2020 in

W.P.No.18234 of 2020. In fact, the latest agreement dated 11.05.2020

entered into between the petitioner and the High Court, represented by

the District Judge, Chittoor, clearly spells out that he can be continued

only till he attains the age of 65 years, or till the completion of Fast Track

Court, whichever is earlier.

10. Having regard to the terms of the appointment order, dated

30.04.2014, the petitioner entered into an agreement for a period of one

year, which was extended on yearly basis. The last agreement, dated

11.05.2020, refers to various G.Os. issued, continuing of Fast Track Courts

from year to year and also to the service contract of employees working in

Fast Track Courts. It will be appropriate to extract the last paragraph of

the agreement, which is as under :

"WHEREAS the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad has also issued circular in Roc.No.3977/E1/2003, dated 31.03.2013 for continuation of this

court and also services of contract employees working in the Fast Track Court beyond 31.04.2016 until further orders. This is an agreement for further period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 or till they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier."

11. The agreement makes it very clear that the service of the writ

petitioner stood extended till he attains the age of 65 years, or up to the

date of Fast Track Court continuing, whichever is earlier. In view of the

above, the question of extending the services of the petitioner beyond 65

years cannot be accepted.

12. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

communication dated 23.04.2011 of the Registrar (Vigilance) of the

combined High Court with regard to establishment of Special Magistrate

Courts under the scheme of 13th Finance Commission. These proceedings

were issued for filling up of vacancies in respect of courts constituted

under the scheme of 13th Finance Commission. The subject of the said

letter itself indicates the same. It will be appropriate to extract the

contents of the letter, which are as under :

"Sub : 13th Finance Commission - Allocation of Funds by the Government of India - Follow up Action -

                        Proposals    for    establishment     of     140    Special
                        Magistrate    Courts     -    Orders   issued     by     the
                        Government       -    Calling     for    the     Interviews
                        scheduled to be held on 27-4-2011 from 2.00
                        p.m. onwards at 6th Floor of the seven storied
                        building   situated     in    High    Court      of    A.P.,
                        Hyderabad - Intimation -Reg.

        Ref     :       1.       High    Court's   Letter        Roc.No.701/E1/2010,
                                 Dated 24-12-2010.

                        2.       G.O.Ms.No.35, LAW (LA & J Home Cts. C)
                                 Dept., Dt.31.3.2011.

I am to invite your attention to the High Court in its letter 1st cited, wherein you were directed to contact the retired Judicial Officers, who have not crossed the age of 70 years as on 31-12-2010 and who are residing in your District about their willingness to work in the Special Magistrate Courts and obtain their consent, if they are willing to work in those Courts.

I am further to state that the Government, have been pleased to sanction 140 Special Magistrates Courts at various places in the State of Andhra Pradesh as recommended by the High Court, under the scheme of the 13th Finance Commission vide G.O. 2nd cited.

In view of the orders issued by the Government, the High Court decided to conduct Interviews on 27-4-2011 from 2.00 p.m. onwards at 6th Floor of the seven storied building situated in the premises of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

I am further to state that the High Court has framed the guidelines for appointment of retired Judicial Ministerial Officers and retired Last Grade Employees and the said guidelines are enclosed to this letter.

I am directed to request you to contact the retired Judicial officers in your District, who applied for the post of Special Magistrate and who are eligible as per the said guidelines of the High Court and direct them to attend the Interview on 27.04.2011 from 2.00 p.m. onwards at 6th Floor of the seven storied building situated in the premises of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, without fail."

13. The communication of the Registrar (Vigilance), dated 23.04.2011,

was considered in W.P.No.16605 of 2020. It was also a case where a

person retired from Judicial Ministerial Service sought appointment

beyond 65 years in permanent Lok Adalat. Dealing with the same, the

Court held as under :

"Reliance on the guidelines for appointment of the retired Judicial Ministerial officers and retired Last Grade Employees enclosed as Annexure II to letter, dated 23.04.2011, of the Registrar (Vigilance), by the petitioner is wholly misplaced, as the said guidelines are applicable to the ministerial staff to be appointed in the 140 Special Magistrate Courts sanctioned under the 13th Finance Commission by the Government of India. It is clear from the subject part of letter, dated 23.04.2011, of the Registrar (Vigilance) which reads as under :

"13th Finance Commission - Allocation of Funds by the Government of India - Follow up Action - Proposals for establishment of 140 Special Magistrate Courts - Orders issued by the Government

- Calling for the interviews scheduled to be held on 27.04.2011 from 2.00 p.m. onwards at 6th Floor of the seven storied building situated in High Court of A.P., Hyderabad - Information -Reg."

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to rely upon Clause 4 of the guidelines under which the retired employees below the age of 69 years are made eligible to be appointed in the said Special Magistrate Courts."

The same measure has been applied by a Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.18234 of 2020, where the petitioner therein sought for

continuation of his services as Head Clerk on contractual basis till he

completes 69 years of age.

14. In view of the above, the argument of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the age limit for retirement be extended up to 69 years has

to be rejected on this score as well.

15. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed much reliance

on the Division Bench Judgment of the combined High Court in

W.P.No.15923 of 2014, dated 14.07.2016. It was a case where the

petitioners therein, after obtaining superannuation in the Andhra Pradesh

State Judicial Ministerial Service, were appointed for the posts of Head

Clerk, Typist-cum-Assistant and Steno-typist in the permanent Lok Adalat

(public utility service) of Karimnagar District. The Division Bench of the

combined High Court relied upon the interim orders passed in W.P.M.P.

No.8439 of 2013 in W.P.No.6732 of 2013 in respect of appointments

made to Lok Adalats of Kadapa District and held that petitioners therein

are entitled to continue till they attain 69 years of age. It is to be noted

here that no specific rules were framed governing the terms and

conditions of service of the employees of permanent Lok Adalats. Under

those circumstances, an order came to be passed permitting the petitioner

therein to continue till attaining the age of 69 years. Further, judgment

dated 14.07.2016 in W.P.No.15923 of 2014 cannot further any guidance

in this case, since different fact situation relating to outsourcing

employees in District Legal Services Authority was considered therein,

which is not the case on hand.

16. In P.Subramanyam Pillai vs. The Permanent Lok Adalat for

Public Utility Services, Chittoor and another i.e., in W.P.No.16605 of

2016, dated 01.07.2016, another Division Bench of the combined High

Court dealt with the said issue, namely, appointment of retired employee

of Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service in permanent Lok Adalat and

held that if the respondent therein stood satisfied with the performance of

the petitioner and in view of the fact that terms and conditions of the

service of the employee of permanent lok adalat are not specified yet, his

services can be extended further and that the process of extension was

directed to be repeated year after year till the Presiding Officer of the

Permanent Lok Adalat desires to dispense with his service. Therefore, the

facts in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner

may not apply to the case on hand.

17. In view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this court,

referred to above; having regard to the contents of the letter, dated

23.04.2011, issued by the Registrar to all the Principal District Judges of

the State and the contents of notification, dated 03.04.2014, the claim of

the petitioner that he should be continued beyond period of 65 years as

Head Clerk cannot be countenanced.

18. From the above, it emerges out that upper age limit of 65 years

was considered at all material times being the limit up to which retired

employee from judicial service could serve as Head Clerk of a Fast Track

Court. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner has no vested right for

extension of his services as Head Clerk in Fast Track Court after

completing 65 years of age. Hence, we see no merit and the Writ Petition

is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr