Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

B Venkata Swamy vs The District Collector And ... on 6 December, 2022

Bench: Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                   WRIT PETITION No. 6247 of 2021

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents,

more particularly, the 3rd respondent in issuing the orders of cancellation

of earlier regularization dated 28.02.2020 without issuing any notice, as

illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government

Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, and

learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that initially,

the 1st petitioner was appointed as NMR Work Inspector on 14.10.1991

and subsequently, his services were converted as Junior Assistant vide

proceedings dated 31.10.2004 by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd petitioner

was also appointed as Office Subordinate on 15.08.1992. By duly

taking into consideration of their long length of service, the petitioners

were extended the benefit of minimum time scale of pay attached to

their respective posts. While so, the petitioners approached the A.P.

Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.8554 of 2012 seeking a

direction for sanction of annual grade increments and revised pay scale,

NV,J W.P.No.6247 of 2021

etc. from the date of granting time scale of pay. The O.A. was allowed

on 31.10.2012. In compliance of the above orders, the 3rd respondent

vide proceedings dated 03.04.2017 extended the benefit of annual grade

increments including revised pay scales from the date of granting time

scale of pay to the petitioners.

i) The learned counsel would also submit that in pursuance of the

resolution of DRDA Governing Body held on 31.07.2010, the services

of the petitioners were regularised and probation was also declared in

their respective cadres vide proceedings dated 28.02.2020 issued by the

3rd respondent. The petitioners were sanctioned 12 years increment as

well as annual grade increments. While so, to the utter surprise of the

petitioners, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated

26.02.2021 cancelling the regularization proceedings of the petitioners

and also the proceedings regarding sanction of 12 years increment,

issued by him earlier.

ii) The learned counsel would contend that the 3rd respondent issued

the impugned proceedings without issuing any prior notice and without

observing the principles of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent

would submit that the petitioners have got regularized and also took the

NV,J W.P.No.6247 of 2021

12 years increment against the norms and such orders have not been

communicated to the Controlling Officer i.e., CEO, SERP. Hence, the

CEO, SERP has instructed the Project Director, Krishna District,

through memo dated 25.02.2021 to cancel the regularization orders and

the orders of sanction of 12 years increment. Further, the Governing

Bodies of DRDA are not having any right on matters related to service

conditions of the DRDA employees. There are no merits in the writ

petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the 3rd

respondent, it is apparent that the impugned proceedings of the 3rd

respondent does not reveal issuance of any prior notice to the petitioner

which shows the non-observance of the principles of natural justice.

6. In Y. Prakasham Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Registration

and Stamps, Visakhapatnam1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of

its judgment held thus:

"11. Probably, we may say, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of factual position being placed before us, it would be very difficult for us to give a clear finding whether the 1st respondent has shown proper roster points relating to each category. However, without going into that controversy, from the submissions made by the learned amicus curiae, it looks to us, the

2000 (3) SLR 86

NV,J W.P.No.6247 of 2021

1st respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rules 23 and 25 of State and Subordinate Service Rules, inasmuch as when certain benefits conferred on a member of a service, when sought to be withdrawn, they are entitled to an opportunity in the matter. Rule 23 of the Rules make it clear that the order of appointment given to a member of a service to a higher post could be withdrawn or revised while affording an opportunity to the affected party, likewise Rule 25 of the Rules empowers, the State Government on its motion or otherwise to review any original order promoting a member of a service to a higher post, subject to affording an opportunity to the affected party. The 1st respondent passed the order of reversion of the petitioners only on the basis of a judgment of the APAT in OA No. 3659 of 1996 and in the light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court (cited supra). This order, in our view, is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of the rules prescribed under the State and Subordinate Service Rules as none of these petitioners were parties before the Tribunal in OA No. 3659 of 1996 nor the 1st respondent has made efforts to examine whether the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Sabharwal's case (supra) could be made applicable to the facts of this case. Added to this, the learned APAT, before whom the order of reversion issued by the 1st respondent against these petition was questioned in the OA No. 7099 of 1999, failed to decide the matter on merits, but disposed of the matter on the basis of the oral representations made by the Government Pleader and the Counsel for the un-official respondents, without going into the merits of the contentions.

Looking this matter from these aspects, we are convinced, the order of the APAT in OA No. 7099 of 1999 dated 30-11-1999 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. Consequently, we declare that the order passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No,El/1223-A/98-l, dated 26-11-1999 reverting these petitioners from the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-II, and giving promotions to the un-official respondents 2 to 4 in their place is in clear terms of violation of Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules. Accordingly, the order passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings No.E1/1223-A/ 98-1, dated 26-11-1999, reverting the petitioners, is set aside and the consequential order promoting the respondents 2 to 4 posting them in the places of the petitioners shall also stand quashed. The petitioners are entitled to continuance in the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade II."

NV,J W.P.No.6247 of 2021

7. The other contention of the petitioners that once a benefit was

conferred upon the petitioners, the same cannot be taken away without

providing any opportunity of hearing and without issuing any prior

notice to the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, has to be considered.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is allowed

and the proceedings dated 26.02.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent are

set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate

action against the petitioners after following due process of law and

after observing the principles of natural justice. No order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the