Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M.P.Gidddanna. vs The District Collector And ... on 6 December, 2022

Bench: Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                  WRIT PETITION No. 6210 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 reversion

vide proceedings dated 04.03.2021 without issuing any notice, as illegal

and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to continue the

petitioner as Senior Assistant without reference to the present impugned

proceedings dated 04.03.2021 with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 petitioner would submit that initially, the

petitioner was appointed as NMR Typist on 01.02.1993 by the 3rd

respondent. By duly taking into consideration of his regular and long

length of service, the petitioner was extended the benefit of minimum

time scale of pay attached to the post of Typist vide proceedings dated

12.04.2004 by the 3rd respondent. While so, the petitioner approached

the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.8638 of 2012 seeking

a direction for sanction of annual grade increments and revised pay

NV,J W.P.No.6210 of 2021

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

allowed on 02.11.2012 and the order of the Tribunal was confirmed by

this Court in W.P.No.6330 of 2013 by an order dated 22.03.2013. In

compliance of the above orders, the 2nd respondent vide memo dated

03.10.2013 extended the benefit of annual grade increments including

revised pay scales from the date of granting time scale of pay to the

petitioner.

i) The learned counsel would also submit that the 3rd respondent

vide proceedings dated 15.11.2018 promoted the petitioner as Senior

Assistant in terms of G.O.Rt.No.135, PR & RD (RD.III) Department,

dated 08.03.1991. Accordingly, the petitioner joined duty on

16.11.2018 and his pay fixation was also made and he was sanctioned

annual grade increments in the cadre of Senior Assistant by the 3rd

respondent vide proceedings dated 11.01.2021. While so, to the utter

surprise of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent reverted the petitioner from

the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Typist by proceedings dated

04.03.2021 even though the petitioner rendered more than two years of

service in the higher post.

NV,J W.P.No.6210 of 2021

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

the impugned proceedings without issuing any prior notice and without

observing due process of law.

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

would submit that the promotion in respect of the petitioner was effected

only on adhoc basis/temporary basis in order to meet the emergency

exigency. She would further submit that while issuing the promotion

orders to the petitioner on adhoc/temporary basis, it is specifically

mentioned therein that the petitioner may be reverted at any time

without any prior notice or information, for which the petitioner agreed

by submitting his self declaration. 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.

NV,J W.P.No.6210 of 2021

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 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

2000 (3) SLR 86

NV,J W.P.No.6210 of 2021

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."

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per

the seniority and eligibility, the petitioner was duly promoted as per the

procedure contemplated under the 3rd respondent after rendering a length

of service with the 3rd respondent at the feeder cadre, is valid and

sustainable. The other contention of the petitioner that once the benefit

of promotion was conferred upon the petitioner, the same cannot be

taken away without providing any opportunity of hearing and without

issuing any prior notice to the petitioner in view of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court, has to be considered.

8. The contention of the learned standing counsel that since the

promotion of the petitioner is on adhoc/temporary basis and it is

specifically mentioned in the promotion orders that the petitioner may