Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K. Venketeswarulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 January, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.21801 OF 2020
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"......to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of mandamus:-
A) By declaring the entire action of the respondents,
particularly the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the
present impugned order in Rc.No.E/8578/2016, dated
3.10.2017 wherein revising the date of regularization of the
petitioner in the cadre of Junior Assistant from 10.5.1993 to
10.1.2009 after lapse of 7 years period from the date of
issuing earlier regularization orders vide Rc.No.A1/2165/2010,
dated 10.7.2012, (wherein his services was
absorbed/regularized w.e.f.10.5.1993) even without putting
prior notice/opportunity is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust,
improper, without jurisdiction colorable exercise of power and
contrary to provisions of Rule 23, 24 and 26 of A.P. State and
Subordinate Service Rules, clear violative of all principles of
natural justice. Apart from that the 2nd respondent has no
power/jurisdiction to review his own orders at this distance of
time and set aside or quash the same
B) And consequently to hold that the earlier absorption/
regularization proceedings issued in Rc.No.A1/2165/2010,
dated 10.7.2012 in the cadre of Jr.Asst. ordered w.e.f
10.5.1993 by the 2nd respondent is holds good for all the
purposes and the petitioner herein is entitled for all
consequential benefits with the above date in the matter of
seniority as well as promotions in the cadre of Senior Assistant
as well as Superintendent, and reconsider his case by duly
considering his latest representations dated 28.1.2018 &
6.3.2020 made to the 2nd respondent without reference to the
present impugned order 3.10.2017 (which is not implemented
as on today) and to pass....."
2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the
respondents, during hearing, Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioner, requested this Court, without touching
the merits of the case, to issue a direction to respondent No.2 to
dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner on
28.1.2018 and 6.3.2020.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for
the respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representations of
the petitioner dated 28.1.2018 and 6.3.2020, if any, pending with
the respondent authorities.
4. In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader
for Social Welfare, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the
allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no
such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1, wherein
the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy
disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But,
they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel
for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to
respondent No.2 to dispose of the representations, dated 28.1.2018
and 6.3.2020, submitted by the petitioner, I find no other
alternative except to issue such direction.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing
respondent No.2 to dispose of the representations submitted by the
petitioner on 28.1.2018 and 6.3.2020, in accordance with law,
within a period of one month from today. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition
shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date : 29.1.2021
AMD
2019 (8) SCALE 544
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.21801 OF 2020
Date : 29.01.2021
AMD
