Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

N.Ananthaiah vs The Correspondent, Besant ... on 26 December, 2023

                  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
                    WRIT PETITION No.38160 of 2012
                                 and
                    WRIT PETITION No.11553 of 2012

COMMON ORDER :

1. The petitioner in WP.No.38160 of 2012 is aggrieved by the in-action of

the respondents in releasing the terminal benefits of the petitioner as

Librarian.

2. The petitioner in WP.No.11553 of 2012 has sought a direction to the

2nd respondent to forthwith issue appointment orders to the petitioner

in pursuance of the proceedings dated 23.10.2010 issued by the 1 st

respondent and allow the petitioner to join as Librarian/Lecturer in

Library Sciences with effect from May, 2000.

3. The petitioner worked as a Librarian in the 2nd respondent/college

and attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012. The petitioner

was initially recruited as Record Assistant in the 2nd

respondent/college on 20.12.1982. The petitioner subsequently

passed M.A., in political science in the year 1982, thereafter he

completed B.Ed., in the year 1985, completed BLIC in the year 1994

and completed MLISC in the year 1996.

4. The 2nd respondent after having considered the qualification of the

petitioner has promoted the petitioner as Assistant Librarian vide

proceedings dated 25.05.1998. The petitioner on account of his

qualifications became eligible for appointment as Librarian/Lecturer-

Library Science. The post of Assistant Librarian was vacant in the 2nd

respondent/college from August, 1996 and similarly the post of //2//

Lecturer in Library Sciences was vacant from July, 1995. Both the

vacancies were not filled up as the 2nd respondent on the premise that

there are no eligible candidates.

5. The petitioner after having completed the minimum service as

Assistant Librarian made a representation to the 2nd respondent to

consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Librarian in the

existing vacancy. The 2nd respondent has not considered the request

of the petitioner, but instead appointed one K.Kusuma Kumari as

part-time Lecturer in Library Sciences/Librarian on contract basis

from 01.09.1995. The petitioner had sensed the mood of the 2nd

respondent in trying to favour Kusuma Kumari, she was inducted as a

part-time Librarian. The petitioner and Kusuma Kumari filed writ

petitions before this Court each of them seeking regularization and

each of them were trying to succeeded over the other for being

appointed on regular basis as Librarian/Lecturer in Library Sciences.

6. WP.No.44 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the

2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as

Librarian. No relief was granted by this Court in the writ petition and

the petitioner filed WA.No.1403 of 2003 which was allowed on

22.08.2006 giving directions to take steps to fill up the post by duly

considering the case of the petitioner.

7. SLP.No.121 of 2007 was filed by Kusuma Kumari, which was

dismissed on 04.04.2007. In spite of clear direction from the Court the

2nd respondent failed to consider the case of petitioner and K.Kusuma //3//

Kumari was continued as part-time Lecturer for sometime and also

regularized her services.

8. The petitioner having served the 2nd respondent/college for several

years as Assistant Librarian had applied for being considered to be

appointed as Librarian. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dated

29.02.2008 issued proceedings approving the promotion of the

petitioner from Assistant Librarian to Librarian and extended State

Scale of Pay of Rs.10,285 - 21,835. Against this order Kusuma

Kumari filed WP.No.1831 of 2008 before this Court challenging the

proceedings of the Select Committee and the proceedings dated

29.02.2008. This Court directed status-quo to be maintained on

10.09.2008. An order of status-quo which was modified in

WPMP.No.203 of 2009. After the status-quo order was vacated the 1st

respondent issued proceedings dated 23.10.2010 approving the

promotion of petitioner as Librarian subject to the outcome of

WP.No.1831 of 2008.

9. In spite of the said orders the 2nd respondent did not implement the

same, in the meanwhile K.Kusuma Kumari filed another WP.No.26657

of 2010 challenging the promotion orders dated 23.10.2010. The

continuous litigation between the petitioner and Kusuma Kumari

revolve around the post of Librarian. This Court granted stay in the

writ petition, however, vide orders dated 04.04.2012 the writ petition

was dismissed.

10. It appears that the respondents were waiting for some event to happen

and delayed appointing the petitioner as Librarian. The petitioner filed //4//

another WP.No.11553 of 2012 seeking a direction to 2nd respondent to

implement orders dated 23.10.2010 by virtue of the orders granted in

the said writ petition vide proceedings dated 19.04.2012 promoted the

petitioner as Librarian and implemented the orders passed by this

Court. The petitioner joined as Librarian on 01.05.2012 and retired

from service on 30.06.2012. After having retired from service on

30.06.2012, the petitioner is entitled for terminal benefits.

11. K.Kusuma Kumari in the interregnum period pending the orders

dated 23.10.2010 filed WA.No.516 of 2012 challenging the order of

dismissal passed in WP.No.26657 of 2010. The writ appeal was

allowed on 25.06.2012 and the Division Bench of this Court set aside

the proceedings dated 23.10.2010.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

order dated 25.06.2012 was not communicated till the petitioner

retired from service on 30.06.2012.Even before the orders of the

Division Bench of this Court were implemented the petitioner has

attained the age of superannuation. The claim of the petitioner for

terminal benefits as a Librarian has nothing to do with the orders

passed by this Court setting aside the proceedings dated 23.10.2010.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that

as per GOMs.No.208 Edn., dated 29.06.1999 qualification for the post

of Librarian is as follows ;

1. Qualification in the National Level Test conducted by UGC.

2. Masters Degree in Library Science with atleast 55 percent marks.

//5//

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner

does not possess National Level Test Qualification, however, has

passed MLISC with 55% marks. The petitioner would be entitled for

State Scale if not UGC Scale. However, denial of terminal benefits

commensurate to the Scale of a Librarian is illegal, irrational and

against the principles of natural justice.

15. The learned Government Pleader on the contrary submits that in the

race for the post of Librarian between the petitioner and Kusuma

Kumari several writ petitions were filed. Each of them trying to better

their chances of getting appointed in the vacant post of Librarian.

They have challenged the proceedings at each step and every step. The

issue attained finality when proceedings dated 19.04.2012 were

issued implementing the earlier orders and appointing the petitioner

as Librarian.

16. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that after

implementation of the orders and after the petitioner took charge as

Librarian and before the petitioner retired on 30.06.2012 the writ

appeal filed by Kusuma Kumari allowed on 25.06.2002. The said order

was dispatched on 30.06.2012 on the day when the petitioner had

attained the age of superannuation. The learned Government Pleader

further submits that in all fairness the acts of the respondent cannot

be found fault with as they are bound to honour the orders of the

Court. It is also submitted that as the proceedings dated 23.10.2010

were set aside by the order of Division Bench of this Court, the service

of the petitioner as Librarian cannot be considered as valid and it //6//

cannot be counted for any purpose including grant of terminal

benefits. As such, prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

17. The cause in the writ petition No.11553 of 2012 would not survive as

the prayer of the petitioner seeking implementation of the proceedings

dated 23.10.2010 as the said proceedings were set aside by the order

of Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.516 of 2012, accordingly,

writ petition No.11553 of 2012 is closed.

18. This Court vide order dated 13.03.2013 passed the following Order :

Sri.Ram Prasad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that the respondents will process the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner in the capacity of an Assistant Librarian in view of the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.06.2012 in WA.No.516 of 2012 and WP.No.1831 of 2008, wherein the orders of promotion of the writ petitioner as a Librarian, accorded to him on 23.10.2010 by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, are quashed holding the said proceedings as illegal and unsustainable.

Therefore, while admitting this writ petition three months time is granted to the respondents to process and settle the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner in the capacity as an Assistant Librarian.

19. The petitioner filed WA.No.458 of 2013 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.48395 of 2012 in W.P.No.38160 of 2012, dated 13.03.2013. The writ appeal was disposed off with the following directions :

Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that though the appellant was retired as Librarian, he has been paid his terminal benefits as an Assistant Librarian. Vide order dated 13.03.2013, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to process and settle the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner in the capacity as an Assistant Librarian.

He submits that once the petitioner has retired as a Librarian, he ought to have been given the terminal benefits as Librarian. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the Writ Appeal with a direction that Writ Petition No. 38160 of 2012 be listed on 22.10.2013 for "final hearing" high up in the list.

//7//

20. Considering his post as Librarian cannot be granted as the

proceedings dated 23.10.2010 were set aside by this Court in

WA.No.516 of 2012, the same remained unchallenged till date. As

such, the proceedings issued in favour of the petitioner approving

the appointment of petitioner as Librarian no longer exist. As

such, the petitioner's claim for terminal benefits commensurate

with the post of Librarian or any benefits accruing on account of

serving as a Librarian cannot be extended to the petitioner.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, the interim orders granted

earlier shall be complied within a period of four weeks from today

if they are not complied earlier.