Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y Appanna vs Shri Shyamala Rao on 23 August, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010517802023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Review I.A.No.1 of 2021
In
WRIT PETITION No.44139/2018
And
C.C.No.397 of 2020
Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in WRIT PETITION No.44139 of 2018
Between:
Y. Appanna and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S LAKSHMI NARAYANA
2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 397/2020
Between:
Y Appanna and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Shri Shyamala Rao and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC)
2. VADAPALLI RAMESH
3. C SUMON
2
The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.44139 of 2018 were daily wage
employees, employed by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.
They sought regularization of their services, on account of their long service
and in view of the right created in their favour by G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
22.04.1994, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. These Writ
Petitioners were regularized, in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
22.04.1994. However, they were not given retrospective regularization from
the date on which they had completed five years of service as stipulated in
G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.
2. Aggrieved by the non-grant of such regularization with
retrospective effect, the petitioners had moved the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A.No.8678 of 2011. This O.A was
allowed, by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, on 08.11.2011, directing the
respondents to regularize the services of the applicants, with effect from
25.11.1993. The A.P. Administrative Tribunal also observed that this
regularization with effect from 25.11.1993 would not make the applicants
eligible for arrears of pay and they would be only eligible for notional fixation of
the pay.
3. The Writ Petitioners, after the aforesaid orders of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal, had approached this Court, by way of this Writ
Petition No.44139 of 2018, for implementation of the orders of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal dated 08.11.2011. This Writ Petition was allowed by a
3
Division Bench of this Court on 16.09.2019 directing the respondents to take
action as per the orders passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in
O.A.No.8678 of 2011 dated 08.11.2011, within a period of three (3) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. As the direction of this Court was not been implemented, the Writ
Petitioners have moved, Contempt Case No.397 of 2020, before this Court. At
that stage, the 3rd respondent-Municipal Corporation had moved the present
Review Application.
5. It is the contention of the review applicant, that though the name
of the Standing Counsel appearing for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal
Corporation has been mentioned in the body of the order, no opportunity was
given to the review applicant/3rd respondent-Municipal Corporation to set out
its objection to the implementation of the orders of the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal. It is contended that the review appellant had two grounds to urge
before the Court. Firstly, the order dated 08.11.2011 in O.A.No.8678 of 2011
had been passed without considering that various other orders passed by the
A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the A.P. Administrative Tribunal had been set
aside by the erstwhile Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Secondly,
there has been an inordinate delay of seven years in filing the Writ Petition for
implementation of the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.
6. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the review petitioner has also taken us through various Judgments on the
4
effect of laches or delay in seeking implementation of the order of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal by filing Writ Petitions.
7. Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the
Writ Petitioners and as well as the petitioners in Contempt Case would submit
that the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal cannot be disputed in a Writ
Petition filed to implement the said orders as it would amount to going into the
merits of the case when the said order had already become final. He would
further submit that in any event the directions given for regularization of the
services of daily wage or contract employees, G.O.Ms.No.212 of 2011 have
attained finality in view of the subsequent Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India including the latest Judgment in
Appeal (c) No.13813 of 2018 dated 23.07.2024 in the case of the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner & Ors. Vs.
P. Lingamma & Ors.
8. There is no dispute as to the fact that the Writ Petition had been
disposed at the admission stage and even before any counter had been filed
by the respondent-Municipal Corporation.
9. The question of whether the objections raised by the Municipal
Corporation, as recorded above and any such other objections that the
Municipal Corporation may have, would have any bearing on the issue, are
matters which would have to be decided by this Court after an opportunity is
given to the Municipal Corporation. To that extent, we would have to hold that
5
a ground is made out for setting aside the orders passed by this Court on
16.09.2019 in W.P.No.44139 of 2018.
10. For the aforesaid reason, the Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 is allowed
and the order dated 16.09.2019 in W.P.No.44139 of 2018 is set aside and the
Writ Petition is restored to file for hearing.
11. As far as Contempt Case No.397 of 2020 is concerned, the said
Contempt Case has been filed for non-implementation of the order, dated
16.09.2018, in W.P.No.44139 of 2018. In view of the fact that the said order
dated 16.09.2018 had been set aside, the Contempt Case would not further
survive and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed leaving it open to
the petitioners in the said Contempt Case to take appropriate steps in the
event of the Writ Petition being decided in their favour.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
________________
HARINATH.N, J.
BSM
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
In
And
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
Date: 23.08.2024
BSM
