Smt. K. Shobha Rani, vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6137 Tel

 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

            WRIT PETITION No. 10155 of 2013

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to

direct the respondents authorities to issue posting order to the

petitioner as Typist-cum-Computer Operation on outsourcing basis

in Revenue Department in Warangal District and allow the

petitioner to continue as such and consequently direct the

respondents to continue to pay the remuneration that is payable to

petitioner as per the norms fixed by the Government as if petitioner

is working continuously even from 07.03.2013 onwards without

any break and grant her all consequential benefits.

2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court by order

16.08.2022 in W.P.M.P No.44179 of 2016 passed the following

interim order:

"Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Heard the counsel for the respondents.

The present Miscellaneous Petition is filed to direct the respondents to engage the petitioner as an outsourcing

employee by applying the decision of this Court reported in 2015 (6) ALD 675 pending disposal of the main W.P. No. 10155 of 2013.

The counsel for the petitioner refers to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 07.07.2007 in Rc.No. A2/7847/2006 and contends that the petitioner was a Typist- cum-Computer Operator and was withdrawn from duties vide Memo dated 07.03.2013 and was directed to report before the Joint Collector, Warangal immediately, unilaterally, arbitrarily without any notice in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner had represented wayback on 17.08.2012, against the said Memo in Rc. No. A2/7847/2006, dated 07.07.2007 however, no action has been initiated till as on date.

The counsel for the petitioner also refers to the proceedings in R.c. No. A2/7847/2006, dated 07.07.2007 of the District Collector, Warangal and the Letter in Rc.No.A/22/2013, dated 15.01.2013 of the Tahsildar, Parkal to substantiate petitioner's case that the petitioner i.e. Smt.K. Shobha Rani was working as Typist-cum-Computer Operator (out-sourcing) in the office of Tahsildar, Parkal, Warangal District. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (6) ALD 675 in WP No. 34361 of 2011, dated 16.09.2015 and says that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings a differential treatment cannot be meted out to the petitioner from regular employees of the Corporation and places reliance of Para No.16 of the Judgment which reads as under :

16. Even if the petitioner is treated as a purely temporary contract employee, she is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as in the case of permanent Government servants, if her services are sought to be terminated on the ground of misconduct. The earliest and the most leading case on this point is the judgment in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union Of India. [AIR 1958 SC 38]. Dealing with the case of reversion of an official holding

a higher post in an officiating capacity, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed:

"In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with.

Under these circumstances, it is opined that, petitioner's case has to be considered by the respondents by applying the decision of this Court reported in 2015(6) ALD

675. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said Judgment and pass appropriate orders according to law within a period of four (4) weeks from today duly taking into consideration the fact that, as borne on record the petitioner worked for the period from 07-07-2007 till 07.03.2013 as on the date when the petitioner was terminated unilaterally without issuing any notice to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

inspite of order dated 16.08.2022, the respondent authorities has

not considered the case of the petitioner and learned counsel for the

petitioner further pray this Court to dispose the writ petition in

terms of the interim order dated 16.08.2022, passed by this Court

in W.P.M.P No.44179 of 2016 in W.P.No.10155 of 2013.

4. On perusal of record, it is found that though the Interim

order was passed on 16.08.2022, till date neither Vacate Stay

Petition nor counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of,

directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the

petitioner, in terms of the order dated 16.08.2022, passed by this

Court in W.P.M.P No.44179 of 2016 and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably

within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of the order, after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner.

6. Miscellaneous application, if any pending, shall stand

closed. No order as to costs.

________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 24.11.2022 Su