P. Narasimha vs The Chairman And Spl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2636 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                   WRIT APPEAL No.376 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

11.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14577 of

2010.

        The   undisputed       facts    of    the    case     reveal       that   the

appellant/writ petitioner was appointed on 03.06.1970 in the

Dairy Development Department and joined the services of the

Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation (for short "the

Corporation") in the year 1974.               He was promoted as Dairy

Attendant on 30.03.1974. He was posted to Milk Chilling Centre,

Bhongir, which was under the control of the Dairy Development

Department     and     was      later    on    converted       as    Corporation.

Undisputedly, the appellant/writ petitioner was absorbed into

services of the Corporation in the year 1974. Options were invited

from the employees to continue with the Government service or to

be an employee of the Corporation and it has been stated that the

appellant/writ petitioner did not submit any option.                        Learned

counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has argued before the

learned Single Judge that in the light of G.O.Ms.No.14 dated

06.01.1976, in case no option was submitted, the employee should

have been treated as a Government servant. The facts of the case

further reveal that after the absorption in the year 1974 in the
                                          2

service of the Corporation, the appellant/writ petitioner retired

from    service     on   attaining     the    age     of      superannuation    on

31.01.2006. The appellant/writ petitioner received all the terminal

dues for which the Corporation employees were entitled and

thereafter in the year 2010, he preferred a writ petition stating that

he should be treated as a Government servant. The learned Single

Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

       Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge are produced as under:-

              "8. Learned Government Pleader for respondents had

contended that the petitioner was relieved from the Dairy Development Department on 05-04-1974 and joined in the services of the Corporation, and ever since, he had discharged his duties therein and he had retired on attaining superannuation on 31-01-2006 and when the petitioner was absorbed in the Corporation from 05-04-1974, he neither raised any objection nor submitted any representation to treat him as a Government employee. Even if he has accepted the retiremental benefits to which he is entitled to, and after all, again he has come forward with this Writ Petition and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the petitioner was absorbed into A.P. Dairy Development Corporation from the F.N. of 05-04-1974 and while discharging his duties, he never raised any objection or submitted any representation to treat him as a Government employee and he has also accepted the terminal benefits to which the Corporation employee is entitled to and having received the retiremental benefits of the A.P. Dairy Development Corporation, the petitioner cannot turn around and contend that he should be treated as a Government employee."

In the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant/writ

petitioner, after absorption in the service of the Corporation on

05.04.1974, did not protest the matter at any point of time. It was

only after four years of his retirement, the appellant/writ petitioner

wanted to become a Government servant/retired Government

servant. Meaning thereby, the appellant/writ petitioner wanted

pension from the Government, though he was absorbed as an

employee of the Corporation in the year 1974.

In the considered opinion of this Court, as the appellant/writ

petitioner was absorbed in the service of the Corporation with

effect from 05.04.1974, he has received all the terminal benefits

from the Corporation and the writ petition was filed after his

retirement in the year 2010, hence the learned Single Judge was

justified in dismissing the writ petition. This Court does not find

any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 13.06.2022 JSU