V. Rama Mohan Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1880 AP

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                 WRIT PETITION No. 16834 of 2021

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri B. Srinivasarao, learned AGP for Services - I, representing the official

respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri S.R.A. Rosedar, learned counsel,

representing the unofficial respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in not forwarding his attendance certificate to the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to issue his attendance certificate to the 4th respondent to release the remuneration amount from March, 2017 to till 28 02 2021 and pass such order or orders..."

3. Sri K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner was engaged as Legal Advisor to the 3rd

respondent/the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District,

vide proceedings No.27/E/2013, dated 10.06.2013, pursuant to the

Superintendent of Police, Nellore's letter Lr.C.No.4031/A1/2004, dated

26.10.2012 and Lr.No.CS(M)/1638/2012, dated 04.06.2013 of the

Collector / District Magistrate, Nellore to the 4th respondent by the Uttam

Jobs Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director / Partner, SPSR

Nellore, on outsourcing basis. The petitioner was asked to report before

the Superintendent of Police in District Police Office, Nellore,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District on or before 15.06.2013, pursuant to which the

petitioner joined in time on 13.06.2013 and since then he continuously

worked. The appointment / engagement was on temporary basis to be

terminated at any point of time without any notice or intimation.

                                      2                                RNT, J
                                                          WP.No.16834 of 2021

However, any termination of appointment was never communicated. The

petitioner continued to work and received salary till February, 2017. Even

thereafter he worked as nothing was communicated regarding termination

of appointment and on 01.02.2021 also he gave final opinion as was

asked by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vidavalur P.S. The petitioner's

salary was not paid after February, 2017, by the 4th respondent awaiting

the attendance certificate from the Superintendent of Police / 3rd

respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the letter

C.No.6549/A1/2015, D.O.No.102/2017, dated 18.02.2017 of the

Superintendent of Police, Nellore, as referred to in the proceedings dated

05.02.2019 of the 4th respondent, was never served to the petitioner and

even as per those proceedings, the letter / order dated 18.02.2017 was

received in the Office of the 4th respondent only on 30.01.2019.

5. Sri B. Srinivasarao, learned AGP for Services - I, for respondents

No.1 to 3, submits that the services of the petitioner were being utilized

as Legal Advisor in District Police Office of Nellore but vide letter dated

18.02.2017, the 3rd respondent requested the 4th respondent to renew the

services of the petitioner only up to 28.02.2017 on outsourcing basis and

consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of any salary after

the month of February, 2017 and up to February, 2017 his salary has

already been paid.

6. Sri Rosedar SRA, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submits

that the salary bills of the petitioner could not be forwarded to the 3rd

respondent for payment as the 4th respondent did not receive any

attendance certificate of the petitioner from the 3rd respondent. He

submits that one Home Guard was deputed to work with the petitioner,

that Home Guard discharged his duties up to December, 2018 with the 3 RNT, J WP.No.16834 of 2021

petitioner. The salary bills of the Home Guard were also forwarded to the

3rd respondent up to November, 2018, which are still pending for

payments. He submits that the letter dated 18.02.2017 of the 3 rd

respondent was received in the office of 4th respondent only on

30.01.2019.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed in

June, 2013 as legal advisor for 3rd respondent by 4th respondent and his

salary up to February, 2017 has been paid. The letter dated 18.02.2017

of the 3rd respondent is also undisputed, but according to the petitioner,

this letter was never served to him and as such his appointment in terms

of the appointment order was never terminated and he continued to work

as such up to February, 2021 in which month he gave legal opinion to the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Vidavalur P.S and as such the petitioner is

entitled for salary for the period of March, 2017 up to February, 2021.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments confined his

prayer to the period with effect from March, 2017 up to February, 2021.

10. The questions as to whether (i) the petitioner worked after

February, 2017 until February, 2021 or not?; (ii) the order dated

10.12.2017 was served to the petitioner or not?; (iii) under what

circumstances and as to how the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vidavalur P.S

asked for the legal opinion from the petitioner?; (iv) whether based on the

only legal opinion in February, 2021, there being nothing on record as to

how many legal opinions the petitioner gave during the period of almost 4

years; the petitioner is, or is not entitled for the salary for the period

claimed? and, the other like questions, being questions of fact and having

been highly disputed, such questions of fact cannot be determined by this 4 RNT, J WP.No.16834 of 2021

Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, but the same are required to be determined, at the first stage

by the 3rd respondent.

11. Accordingly, with the consent of all the counsels for the

parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally, with a direction to

the 3rd respondent/the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, SPSR Nellore

District, to look into the matter and verify about the working of the

petitioner after the period from February, 2017 to February, 2021 on the

basis of the material on record, and pass a reasoned and speaking order,

in accordance with law with due observance of the principles of natural

justice, i.e., by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

12. The 3rd respondent shall complete the above exercise, in

accordance with law, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of

production of a fresh representation by the petitioner stating all the

material facts, as also annexing all the material documents in support of

his claim along with copy of this order.

13. If the 3rd respondent comes to the conclusion that the

petitioner has worked for the said period and there is no other legal

impediment, his salary would be paid within a further period of 2 months

of taking such decision by the 3rd respondent.

14. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on

the merit of the claim of the petitioner either way.

15. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

consequence.

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 20.04.2022 Dsr