Dr.Ntr University Of Health ... vs A.Auruna
2022 Latest Caselaw 8067 AP

                               1




      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
                         &
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

                  W.A. No. 797 OF 2022

JUDGMENT:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

     Heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Special

Government Pleader, representing Sri G. Vijaya Kumar,

learned   Standing       Counsel      for   appellant-university/

respondents and Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned counsel

for the 1st respondent/ writ Petitioner.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.29139 of 2022

are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal, preferred

under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

This Appeal is filed, questioning the order dated

11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the

aforementioned Writ Petition. By way of the order

impugned in the Appeal, the Writ Petition filed by the writ

petitioner-1st respondent herein came to be allowed by the

learned Single Judge with a direction to the respondents in

the Writ Petition to continue the writ petitioner-1st

respondent herein in service as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance

(HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 by

enhancing the age of superannuation upto the age of 62

years.

According to the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein

in the Appeal, she has been working in the appellant-

university since the year 1988 as Telephone Operator and

earlier she worked as Telephone Operation in the Institute

of Coastal and Offshore Research, Andhra University,

Visakhapatnam, during the year 1986. The Registrar of

appellant-university vide Memo bearing

Ref.No.1455/MIII/2005, dated 12.04.2022 informed the

writ petitioner that she would be retiring from service on

30.09.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60

years. Challenging the validity of the said Memo, dated

12.04.2022, the first respondent-writ petitioner came up

before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. After

receipt of notice from this Court, the respondent-university

filed a counter affidavit, resisting the Writ Petition and the

relief sought for. The learned Single Judge eventually

allowed the Writ Petition with a direction, referred to supra.

According to Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned

Special Government Pleader, the order passed by the

learned Single Judge is highly erroneous and contrary to

law and the learned Single Judge grossly erred in passing

the order without considering the averments made in the

counter affidavit filed by the appellant-university. It is also

the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader

in elaboration that the Regulations referred to at paragraph

5 of the impugned order are not relevant to the present

case and the said Regulations pertain to Andhra

University. It is further submitted by the learned Special

Government Pleader that the proceedings of the Vice

Chancellor, Andhra University, dated 31.01.2022 were also

cancelled later by the Andhra University vide order dated

30.07.2022. It is also the submission of the learned Special

Government Pleader that the petitioner herein is not a

regular employee of the University and she is working on

NMR basis, as such, the writ petitioner-1st respondent

herein is not entitled for any relief from this Court.

On the contrary, Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned

counsel for the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein

contended that having regard to provisions of Section

3(d)(iv) of the University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 and

the amended provisions of Andhra Pradesh Public

Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act,

1984, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, the

writ petitioner-first respondent is entitled for the benefit of

extension of the age of superannuation. A perusal of the

material available before this Court reveals, in clear and

vivid terms, that after receipt of the notice, the appellant-

university filed a detailed counter affidavit, denying various

averments and allegations made by the writ petitioner-1st

respondent and in the direction of justifying the impugned

action in the Writ Petition. A perusal of the order passed by

the learned Single Judge shows that the same does not

refer to the contents of the counter affidavit, filed by the

appellant-university.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the grounds

urged in the Writ Petition, the pleadings in the counter

affidavit of the appellant-university and the contentions

raised, are required to be examined. In view of the same,

this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires

reconsideration.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is

allowed, setting aside the order dated 11.10.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29139 of 2022 and

the Writ Petition stands restored to file for consideration

and disposal afresh. No order as to costs.

Having regard to the nature of controversy, this Court

deems it appropriate to direct the Registry to place this

matter before the learned Single Judge having the

provision as per roster in the first week of November, 2022.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case,

shall stand closed.

__________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J

____________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 28.10.2022 Ks

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

W.A. No.797 OF 2022 (per A.V. Sesha Sai, J)

Date: 28.10.2022

Ks