The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs R.Kannababu
2021 Latest Caselaw 3615 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 APPEAL No. 300 of 2021
                      (Taken up through video conferencing)


The State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District
and others.                                                   .. Appellants

        Versus

R.Kannababu S/o. Kannayya,
Aged 53 years, Occ: Pump Mechanic,
RWS&S, Sub-Division, Yalamanchili,
Yalamanchili Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District,
and others.                                                   .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, Government Pleader

Counsel for respondents/petitioners : Mr. T.V.V.Koteswara Rao

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt: 17.09.2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader

attached to the office of learned Additional Advocate General-II,

appearing for the appellants/State.

2. Also heard Mr. T.V.V. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing

for the respondents/writ petitioners.

3. The writ petitioners, along with some others, had approached the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application,

being O.A.No.9089 of 2012, which was disposed of by an order dated

21.11.2012. Relevant portion of the order, reads as follows:

"2. According to the applicants, they were initially

appointed during the year 1989 onwards as NMRs. Since

the date of their initially appointment, they are

continuously working as NMRs and the Government issued

G.O.Rt.No.1523 PR & RD dated 26.10.2009 and

G.O.Rt.No.1542 PR & RD dated 29.10.2009 granting

minimum time scale and D.A. to the applicants and they

were paid minimum time scale attached to the posts as per

the above G.O. According to the applicants, they are

working without H.R.A. and increments.

3. Further, according to the applicants they were

also extended the benefit of PRC 2010 and also the

periodical increments from the date of payment of

minimum time scale, but the same were not released from

the date of payment of minimum time scale. Similar

question arose before this Tribunal in O.A.No.7195 of 2002

and the same was disposed of on 26.08.2002 and

subsequently, the same was also followed by this Tribunal

in several OAs and the respondents also took the matter to

the Hon'ble High Court by way of W.P.No.759, 760 and

979 of 2012 and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High

Court vide orders dated 07.06.2012, confirmed the orders

of this Tribunal in O.A.8129/2011 and batch wherein the

orders were passed basing on the orders passed in

O.A.7195/2002. Further according to the applicants, the

matter was also carried to the Apex Court of India in SLP

(Civil) No.6422 of 2007 and the Apex Court of India also

confirmed the orders of this Tribunal.

4. Further, according to the applicants, the

Government issued G.O.Rt.No.405, Municipal

Administration & Urban Development (D1) Department,

dated 30.03.2012, in respect of Vijayawada Municipal

Corporation, implementing the orders of this Tribunal in

O.A.No.7335/2010, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble

High Court and also the Apex Court of India in SLP

No.29963/2011.

6. In view of the above circumstances, the

applicants in the present O.A. are also entitled for release of

increments, HRA and CCA and also revised pay scales along

with arrears of pay. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed

directing the respondents to release increments, HRA, CCA

and revised pay scales to the applicants, and also to release

the arrears, within a period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order."

4. This appeal is directed against an order dated 28.09.2019, passed

by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13803 of 2019 directing

implementation of the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal.

5. Submission of Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda is that the learned single

Judge was required to consider whether the writ petitioners were

entitled for release of increments, HRA etc., or whether they were

similarly situated with others and the learned single Judge having not

done this exercise, the impugned order is vitiated. It is further

submitted that because of delay in approaching the writ court, the writ

petition ought to have been dismissed.

6. We find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for

the appellants.

7. The order of the learned Tribunal was not appealed by the

appellants/State and its functionaries, who were parties to the Original

Application, but at the same time, the order was not implemented by the

appellants. While it is correct that alleging wilful and deliberate violation

of the aforesaid order, no contempt application was filed, the writ

petitioners sought implementation of the aforesaid order by filing the

writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises.

8. In a country governed by rule of law, it is expected that the

orders of the Tribunals or Courts are diligently complied with by the

State and State is not expected to take a hyper-technical view that

approach to writ court is delayed.

9. The sub-stratum of the argument of Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda is an

attempt to collaterally challenge the order of the learned Tribunal

without assailing the same at the first instance, which is not permissible

in law.

10. Considering the above, we find no merit in the writ appeal and,

accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

GM

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT APPEAL No. 300 of 2021 (per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 17.09.2021

GM