Smt P.Janaki vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4981 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.14020 OF 2013,

                WRIT PETITION NO.14019 OF 2013,

                WRIT PETITION NO.14016 OF 2013,

                WRIT PETITION NO.14014 OF 2013,
                                  AND
                WRIT PETITION NO.13943 OF 2013

                          COMMON ORDER


      In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are praying for a Writ of

Mandamus to declare the respective show-cause notices in Lr.

No.B7/818/2005 dt.17.04.2013 of the 3rd respondent asking the

petitioners to show cause as to why their services should not be

terminated, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently to

declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service and also

that they are entitled to receive the minimum time scale of pay attached

to the posts.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these cases are that all the

petitioners were appointed to various sanctioned posts in DRDA,

Khammam in the year 1995. Since they were working for more than 20

years and were attending to the works allotted to them on par with W.P.Nos.14020, 14019, 14016, 14014 & 13943 of 2013

regular employees, the petitioners made representation for payment of

minimum time scale of pay. The respondents had recommended and

accordingly the petitioners were also allowed the minimum time scale of

pay. However, vide notices dt.17.04.2013, all the petitioners individually

were directed to show cause as to why their services should not be

terminated in view of the fact that they have been granted minimum

time scale of pay after issuance of Act 2 of 1994 which has banned

making any fresh appointment or filling up of any existing vacancies.

Challenging the said show-cause notices, the present Writ Petitions have

been filed.

3. Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri

Srinivas Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

though the petitioners were appointed long after Act 2 of 1994 had been

enacted, i.e., in the year 1995, the petitioners were also allowed the

minimum time scale of pay. It is submitted that the present show-cause

notices dt.17.04.2013 were issued after the petitioners had put in more

than 15 years of service. He submitted that the petitioners were eligible

for regularisation of their services and at that stage, issuing of the show-

cause notices for termination of their services, albeit in view of Act No.2 W.P.Nos.14020, 14019, 14016, 14014 & 13943 of 2013

of 1994, is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contention that if a

show-cause notice is not in accordance with the settled position of law,

this Court can interfere with such action, he placed reliance upon the

following decisions of,--

(1) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and

another Vs. Vicco Laboratories1.

(2) Rajasthan High Court in the case of Renu Tandon Vs. Union of

India2.

(3) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others3.

(4) Madras High Court in the case of V S O Balakrishnan and

others Vs. District Collector, Assistant Director of Geology

and Mining and District Collector4.

He also placed reliance upon various case law on the eligibility of the

petitioners for regularisation. He placed reliance upon the decision of

(2007) 13 SCC 270

1993(66) ELT 375

(2006) 12 SCC 33

2009 (2) MadLJ 577 W.P.Nos.14020, 14019, 14016, 14014 & 13943 of 2013

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others5 and other

decisions which in turn have relied upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Umadevi (5 supra).

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, on the other hand,

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Union of India and others Vs. Coastal Container

Transporters Association and others6 in support of his contentions

that where the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the ban

on recruitment, their services cannot be continued.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

it is noticed that all the petitioners have been appointed after Act 2 of

1994 was passed even though there was a ban on recruitment even on

contractual basis. In view thereof, the appointments made by the

respondents were not in conformity with Act 2 of 1994. However, the

respondents have not only appointed the petitioners but have extracted

work from them and have also extended the benefit of minimum time

(2006) 4 SCC 1

Civil Appeal No.2276 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No.25699 of 2018 dt.26.02.2019 W.P.Nos.14020, 14019, 14016, 14014 & 13943 of 2013

scale of pay. Having done that and after a lapse of nearly 15 years, the

respondents cannot now turn around and terminate their services

particularly at the stage when the petitioners have crossed the minimum

age for Government employment and may also not be suitable for any

other employment.

6. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Vicco

Laboratories (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-

interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice is the normal

rule, but where it is issued without jurisdiction or in abuse of process of

law, it can be interfered with. It is noticed that all other judgments on

which the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance

upon, point to the circumstances under which a show-cause notice can

be interfered with and that there is no ban to interfere in such matters

when the Court feels that it is not necessary to insist upon a party that it

should first suffer and submit itself to the jurisdiction which is being

wrongly exercised without any basis or material or where the notice is

issued with a premeditated mind also, such notices can be interfered

with. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the circumstances of the W.P.Nos.14020, 14019, 14016, 14014 & 13943 of 2013

present cases warrant such interference and accordingly, the impugned

show-cause notices are set aside.

7. While issuing notice to the respondents, this Court, by way of an

interim order had directed the petitioners to submit their explanations to

the impugned show-cause notices, but had directed the respondents not

to finalise the same. It is submitted that the petitioners have been

continuing in service since then. Therefore, since the petitioners have

put in more than 20 years of service and are also granted minimum time

scale of pay, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents

to consider the representations/explanations of the petitioners for

regularisation of their services in accordance with the directions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka

and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others (5 supra) and State of

Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others7. It is further

directed that till a decision is taken by the respondents, the services of

the petitioner shall not be dispensed with, only on the above ground of

Act 2 of 1994.

(2010) 9 SCC 247 W.P.Nos.14020, 14019, 14016, 14014 & 13943 of 2013

8. With the above directions, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

No order as to costs.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in all the Writ Petitions

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 10.10.2022 Svv