Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

O Suryanarayana vs The State Of Ap on 16 October, 2023

                                   1




       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
                         &
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

           WRIT APPEAL Nos.1024 AND 1025 OF 2022

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

      Since these two appeals, preferred under Clause 15 of

the Letter Patent, arise out of W.P.No.6641 of 2020, this

Court deems it appropriate to hear these appeals together

and to dispose of the same by way of this Common Order.

      2.     In W.A.No.1024 of 2022, challenge is to the order

dated 02.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in

Review     I.A.No.01   of   2021       in    W.P.No.6641     of   2020.

W.A.No.1025      of    2022   calls         in   question   the   order

dated 03.11.2021, passed in Writ Petition No.6641 of 2020.

      3.     Appellant herein is the petitioner in the aforesaid

Writ Petition. By way of orders impugned in these appeals,

the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition so also

the Review, filed by the Writ Petitioner.

      4.     Appellant herein is a Secondary Grade Teacher in

Sri Satyanarayana and Srinivasa Aided Primary School,

Cumbum, Prakasam District. The Correspondent of the

School passed an order on 24.09.2014, transferring the

appellant from Cumbum to Ravipadu of Prakasam District.

Since the prior approval of the District Educational Officer is

necessary, for transferring the Writ Appellant, the

Correspondent of the School addressed a letter on

26.09.2014 to the District Educational Officer, Prakasam

District, Ongole seeking ratification of the said transfers. As

there was no action taken by the District Educational Officer,

Prakasam District on the said letter, dated 26.09.2014, the

Correspondent of the School approached the Composite High

Court, by way of filing W.P.No.31773 of 2014. Initially, an

interim order was passed by the Composite High Court and,

eventually, by way of the order, dated 04.01.2017, the

Composite High Court allowed the said W.P.No.31773 of

2014, directing the authorities to ratify the transfers effected

by the Correspondent of the School vide proceedings,

dated 24.09.2014, and to release all the benefits to

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in accordance with law. In the said

Writ Petition, the appellant herein was arrayed as

Respondent No.5. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned

Single Judge, the Writ Appellant herein filed Writ Appeal

No.126 of 2017, and a Division Bench of this Court vide

order, dated 31.01.2017, disposed of the said Writ Appeal,

modifiying the order passed by the learned Single Judge in

the Writ Petition. Last two paragraphs of the said order read

as follows:-

" We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to permit both the appellant and the 5 th respondent to submit their representation to the 3 rd respondent, raising objections, if any, to the respondent- writ petitioner's request to ratify their action in having effected transfers, within two weeks from today. The 3 rd respondent shall consider the respondent-writ petitioner's application seeking ratification of their earlier action in effecting transfers, and the representations, if any, submitted both by the appellant and the 5 th respondent, in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned order at the earliest and, in any event, not later than six weeks from today. It is open to the appellant, the respondent-writ petitioner and the 5 th respondent to communicate a copy of the order now passed by us to the 3rd respondent.

The order under appeal is modified accordingly and the Writ appeal is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs".

5. Thereafter, as directed by the Division Bench, the

appellant herein submitted a representation. The District

Educational Officer passed an order, vide

Rc.No.7514/C2/2014, dated 24.03.2017. The operative

portion of the said order reads as follows:-

"Accordingly, the Deputy Educational Officer, Markapur conducted enquiry and submitted the report vide reference 16th cited above in which he stated that Sri O.Suryanarayana, SGT., SS & S Aided Primary School, Cumbum and M.Pandurangaiah, SGT., SS & S Aided Primary School, Ravipadu transfer vis-a-vis is irregular and avoid since the management has no power to effect the transfers without the prior approval of the competent authority in references 17th and 18th cited above. Even the correspondent failed to pay the salaries of Sri M.Pandu Rangaiah, SGT., and the action of Correspondent caused irrecoverable loss to the teacher whose services are utilized by the correspondent. Further he stated that Mr.O.Suryanarayana was not served either transfer order or relieving order by the correspondent or the Headmaster and husband of the correspondent physically prevented Sri O.Suryanarayana to attend his normal duties and caused absent to school from 25.09.2014 onwards till today to intentionally harassing Sri O.Suryanarayana, SGT., without any fault of him. Since the transfer order issued to above incumbents by the correspondent stands illegal and deemed fit for cancellation and the same shall be cancelled and the incumbents shall be retained at their original places of working.

After careful examining the whole issue, the management has totally violated the Government rules and made the irregular transfers.

In view of the above, the following instructions are issued:

1) The transfer orders are cancelled as they are not obtained prior permission from the Competent Authority.

2) Both the transferred teachers shall report to duty at their original places of working on the receipt of these proceedings.

3) The Deputy Educational Officer, Markapur and the Mandal Educational Officer, Cumbum shall see that the proceedings are implemented immediately in view of the welfare of the students.

This should be treated as the most urgent and any deviation will be viewed serious.

6. Thereafter, the issue landed before the Collector

and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole and the

District Collector passed an order vide proceedings in

Rc.No.7514/C2/2014, dated 06.11.2017. The concluding

paragraphs of the said order read as follows:-

"Keeping in view of the above circumstances,

Smt O.Subbamma, SSS Aided P.S, Cumbum and Ravipadu is

hereby suspended from Correspondent ship with immediate

effect as per Section 24 of Act 1 of 1982. The Mandal

Educational Officer, Cumbum appointed as Special Officer of

the above two schools to look after the administrative

functioning of the schools and to avoid hardship to the

teachers working in the schools.

The Mandal Educational Officer, Cumbum is directed to

submit the pending salary bills of the two teachers to the

DEO, Ongole immediately as per rules to take further action

in the matter"

7. Complaining inaction, once again, Writ Appellant

herein filed W.P.No.3726 of 2018. By way of the order,

dated 12.09.2019, the said Writ Petition came to be disposed

of by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the

Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District,Ongole

to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the

Writ Petitioner/Appellant herein in accordance with the order

passed by the District Collector on 06.11.2017, within a

period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

the order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the District

Collector, vide proceedings in Rc.No.7514/C2/2014,

dated 19.10.2019, passed an order, declining payment of the

salaries for the period from 25.09.2014 to 26.03.2017 on the

ground that the Writ Appellant herein did not work anywhere

during the said period. Relevant portion of the said order

reads as follows:-

"The arrear salaries of Sri M.Pandu Rangaiah, SGT were paid as he attended duties. Where as Sri O.Surya Narayana has not attended school for the above said

period. As per the report of the HM, SS & S Ravipadu and as per the report of the MEO Cumbum, Sri O.Suryanarayana has not attended the school from 25.09.2014 to 26.03.2017 and he absented from duties without applying any leave letter and without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and without stating any reason and the rule of no work no pay is applicable. Hence, a speaking order was issued in the reference 7th cited.

In view of the above circumstances, and in view of the petitioner i.e., Sri O.Suryanarayana SGT has not attended to duties from 25.09.2014 to 26.03.2017 in any school and the entire period the incumbent absented for his legitimated duties. Hence, he is not eligible for payment of arrears of the above said absent period.

Hence, his plea for payment of salaries for the above said absent period is not feasible and the Rule of no work no pay is applicable".

8. In the above backdrop, assailing the validity and

legal sustainability of the aforesaid order, dated 19.10.2019,

the appellant herein instituted the present Writ Petition

No.6641 of 2020. The learned Single Judge, vide order,

dated 03.11.2021, dismissed the Writ Petition, obviously, on

the ground of 'no work no pay'. After unsuccessfully availing

the remedy of Review, referred to supra, the Writ Petitioner

has filed present Writ Appeals before this Court.

9. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned

counsel for the Writ Appellant, and Sri Naga Raju, learned

Government Pleader for School Education for the

respondents, apart from perusing the material available on

record.

10. According to the learned counsel for the

appellant, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge,

dismissing the Writ Petition, so also the Review petition are

erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and

object of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and the Rules

framed therein. In elaboration, it is further contended by the

learned counsel that, in the absence of any fault on the part

of the Writ Appellant, the salary for the relevant period ought

not to have been denied. It is further submitted that the said

aspect would be very much evident from the report of the

Deputy Educational Officer, Markapur Division, Prakasam

District submitted to the District Educational Officer, vide

letter in Rc.No.SPL/Dy.E.O/2017, dated 21.02.2017. It is

also the submission of the learned counsel that the orders

dated 24.03.2017, came to be passed by the District

Educational Officer, duly taking into consideration the report

of the Deputy Educational Officer, dated 21.02.2017. It is

further submitted by the learned counsel that, since the

order passed in W.P.No.31773 of 2014, to the extent of

directing to release all the benefits, has attained finality,

there is absolutely no justification on the part of the

respondent authorities in denying the claim of the

Writ Appellant/petitioner.

11. On the contrary, Sri Nagaraju, learned

Government Pleader for School Education, strongly resisting

the Writ Appeal, contends that there is absolutely no error

nor there exists any infirmity in the orders passed by the

learned Single Judge and in the absence of the same, the

impugned orders are not amenable for any correction under

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In elaboration, it is further

contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Writ

Petitioner/Appellant did not place on record any evidence to

show that he was physically prevented from discharging his

duties by the Correspondent and the representations

submitted by the Writ Petitioner/Appellant were also silent

on the said aspect. It is further submitted by the learned

Government Pleader that no evidence was placed on record

by the Writ Petitioner before the learned Single Judge to

substantiate his claim, as such, the orders of the learned

Single Judge cannot be faulted.

12. In the above backdrop, now the issues that

emerge for consideration of this Court in the present Writ

Appeals are:-

1) Whether the orders passed by the learned Single

Judge in the Writ Petition and the Review Petition

are sustainable and tenable?

2) Whether the order passed by the learned Single

Judge warrant any interference of this Court under

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?

13. There is absolutely no dispute as regards the

realities, such as passing of Transfer Order by the

Correspondent of the institution on 24.09.2019, the

ratification sought by the Correspondent from the District

Educational Officer vide letter, dated 26.09.2014, the report

of the Deputy Educational Officer, dated 21.02.2017, passing

of orders by the District Educational Officer vide proceedings

dated 24.03.2017 and cancellation of the orders of transfer.

Pursuant to the direction of the District Educational Officer,

Prakasam District and the orders of the Composite High

Court in Writ Appeal No.126 of 2017, the Deputy Educational

Officer, Markapur Division, Prakasam District visited the

subject institution, and after holding enquiry, submitted a

report to the District Educational Officer for taking further

course of action on the said report and the findings recorded

therein. In this context, it may be appropriate and relevant to

reproduce unnumbered paragraph of the said report,

dated 21.02.2017, which reads as follows:-

"It is also pertinent to submit here that neither the transfer order not relieving orders were served to Sri O.Suryanarayana SGT SSS Primary School Cumbum till today. As per the records of the school and the statement of Sri O.Suryanarayana, it is also needless to point out that the husband of correspondent physically prevented Sri O. Suryanarayana to attend his normal duties and caused absent to the school from 25.09.2014 onwards till today intentionally to harass Sri O.Suryanarayana SGT without any fault of him".

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

when the issue was brought to the notice of the Collector and

District Magistrate, the Collector passed an order on

06.11.2017, and ordered suspension of the Correspondent as

per Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act. Apart

from above, the Collector and District Magistrate also

directed the Mandal Educational Officer, Cumbum to submit

the pending salary bills of the Writ Petitioner/Appellant and

another. It is also relevant to note that, assailing the inaction

pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, dated 06.11.2017,

when W.P.No.3726 of 2018 was filed before this Court, the

learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said Writ

Petition, with a direction to the District Collector to pass

appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, in

accordance with the orders passed earlier on 06.11.2017,

within a period of four(4) weeks. Having directed to process

the pay bills earlier, now, by way of the orders,

dated 19.10.2019, the District Collector declined payment of

salary for the period from 25.09.2014 to 26.03.2017.

15. Now the issue in the present case is the payment

of salary for the period commencing from 25.09.2014 to the

appellant. It is also significant to note in this context that at

the time of pursuing the remedy of Review before the learned

Single Judge, the Writ Petitioner/appellant brought to the

notice of the learned Single Judge, the proceedings

dated 21.02.2017, according to which, the Correspondent of

the College physically prevented the Writ Petitioner/appellant

from discharging his duties. With regard to the contention of

the learned Government Pleader, as regards alleged indolent

attitude in pursuing the authorities, it is required to be noted

that Writ Petitioner/Appellant vide letters, dated 05.12.2014,

11.03.2015, 15.07.2015, 27.04.2016, 05.05.2016 and

08.02.2017, brought to the notice of the District Educational

Officer about the issue. In fact, copies of the said letters are

also filed along with the present Writ Appeals, which show

the affixation of stamp by the Office of the District

Educational Officer. In this context, it may be appropriate to

refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Shobha Ram Raturi Vs.Haryana Vidyut Prasaran

Nigam Limited1. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said Judgment

read as follows:-

"the denial of back wages to the appellant by the High Court vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed by the appellant by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of 2011. The High Court rejected the claim of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal on 26.5.2011. The orders dated 14.09.2010 and 26.5.2011 passed by the High Court limited to the issue of payment of back wages, are subject matter of challenge before this Court.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside,

(2016) 16 SCC 663

the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilized the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of "no work no pay".

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the impugned order passed by the High Court, to the limited extend of denying wages to the appellant, for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005 deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside".

16. Having regard to the above reasons and taking

into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, in the above referred Judgment, these Writ Appeals

are allowed, setting aside the orders passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.6641 of 2020 and I.A.No.01 of 2021

in W.P.No.6641 of 2020 and, consequently, the respondents

are directed to pay the salary and allowances to the Writ

Petitioner/Appellant for the period from 25.09.2014 to

26.03.2017 and to regularize the said period for all purposes.

This exercise shall be concluded within a period of two(2)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There

shall be no order as to costs.