M/S. Indian Minerals And Granite ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1919 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
                           AND
          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
                 WRIT PETITION No.5370 OF 2022

     ORDER:- (Per AVSS,J)

       Heard Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Services-III, for petitioners and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy,

learned counsel for the respondent/applicant.

2. Respondents in O.A.No.1727 of 2014, on the file of the

Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (herein after called the

Tribunal) are the petitioners in the present Writ Petition, filed

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition

calls in question the order passed by the Tribunal in the above

mentioned Original Application. By way of an order dated

03.04.2017, the Tribunal disposed of the said Original

Application, with a direction to the respondents

therein/petitioners in the present Writ Petition, to sanction and

release the minimum time scale of pay (Basic+DA) attached to

the regular post born on the Last Grade Service, without any

other allowances including increments as per revised pay scales

from time to time with arrears of three years prior to institution

of the O.A, i.e., 06.03.2014 and continue to pay till the applicant

is in service.

3. According to the applicant, he was initially appointed as

watchmen on contingent basis, with effect from 01.07.1990 in

the office of the Executive Engineer-petitioner No.5 herein. The

Superintending Engineer-petitioner No.4 vide letter bearing

No.SE/SRBC.1/NDL/AB/EC.3/13 ENC, dated 07.03.2012,

requested the Engineer-in-Chief (IW), Irrigation & CAD

Department to send proposals to the Government for sanction of

minimum time scale of pay+DA to as many as 11 individuals

including the respondent/applicant. When the authorities did

not take any action pursuant to them said letter, the respondent

herein approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.1727 of

2014. The Tribunal after completion of pleadings in the said

Original Application, by way of the order assailed in the present

Writ Petition, disposed of the Original Application, in the manner

indicated supra. This Writ Petition challenges the validity and

the legal sustainability of the said order passed by the Tribunal.

5. It is contended by Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned Government

Pleader for Services-III, that the order passed by the Tribunal is

highly erroneous, contrary to law and the Tribunal passed the

impugned order without taking into consideration the material

available on record. It is further submitted by the learned

Government Pleader that, having regard to certain agreements

entered into between the Department and the applicant, the

respondent/applicant herein cannot be construed as a

contingent employee in the Department and the Tribunal lost

sight of the said significant aspect which touches the very root of

the matter.

6. On the contrary, Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel

for the respondent/applicant submits that, since there is no

jurisdictional error or patent perversity in the order passed by

the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal is not amenable for any

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is

further submitted by the learned counsel that having regard to

the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, on the basis of the

material available, the said conclusions cannot be interfered with

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by way of judicial

review.

7. In the above back drop, now the issues that emerge for

consideration of this Court in the present Writ Petition are:

"i) whether the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition warrants any interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?

ii) Whether the petitioners herein are entitled for any relief in the present Writ Petition?"

8. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the factum

of recommendation made by the Superintending Engineer-

petitioner No.4 herein, vide letter dated 07.03.2012 addressed to

the Engineer-in-Chief and there is also no dispute as regards the

existence of the name of the respondent in the annexure

attached to the said letter, showing the applicant as a contingent

employee. It is also significant to note in this context that, when

Srisailam Right Bank Canal Workers' Union approached the

composite High Court by way of filing W.P.Nos.20449 and 21563

of 1994, the composite High Court initially dismissed the said

Writ Petition by way of an order dated 17.01.2007 and when the

petitioners in the said Writ Petition filed a Review

W.P.M.P.No.11239 of 2007, the composite High Court vide order

dated 23.04.2007 restored the main writ Petition and

subsequently vide order dated 19.06.2007, W.P.Nos.20449 and

21563 of 1994 were closed while taking into consideration the

proceedings of the Superintending Engineer, SRBC Circle No.1,

Nandyal, dated 20.01.2006. A copy of the said proceedings is

also placed on record along with the counter affidavit of the

respondent in the present Writ Petition. In the said proceedings

dated 20.01.2006 of the office of the Superintending Engineer,

name of the respondent/applicant herein was shown at Serial

No.88. The said proceedings also further discloses that the

applicant herein came to be converted as Full time Regular NMR.

Therefore, the contention contra advanced by the learned

Government Pleader with regard to the status of the applicant

cannot be sustained. A perusal of the order passed by the

Tribunal, in clear and vivid terms, discloses that the Tribunal

after elaborately considering various issues including the orders

passed by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.542, Municipal

Administration and Urban Development Department, dated

31.08.2009, G.O.Ms.No.823, Municipal Administration and

Urban Development dated 28.11.2008, G.O.Rt.No.1225,

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.II-A) Department,

dated 22.08.2009 and G.O.Rt.No.493, Municipal Administration

and Urban Development, dated 26.04.2011, passed the order,

challenged in the Writ Petition. The Tribunal also took into

consideration the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court for

arriving at the conclusions.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is neither

jurisdictional error nor there is any patent perversity in the order

passed by the Tribunal which warrant issuance of writ in the

nature of Writ of Certiorari. Therefore, this Court is not inclined

to meddle with the order passed by the Tribunal.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending

shall also stand dismissed.

__________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date:21.04.2022

VSL

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION No.5370 of 2018

Date: 21.04.2022

VSL