M .Padmaiah, Nizamabad vs The State Of Telangana.Prl,Secy, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3644 Tel

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                                 AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

              WRIT PETITION No.36760 of 2017

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


      This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved

by the action of the respondents in not implementing the

orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative

Tribunal, (for short, 'the Tribunal'), Hyderabad in

O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013.

2. Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and learned Special

Government Pleader for Home appearing for the

respondents.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that initially

he was appointed as a Police Constable in the year 1972

and he has to absent himself from duties with effect from

28.04.1982 to 01.05.1982 owing to ill-health and the

Disciplinary Authority has constituted the same as AKS, J & JAK, J ::2:: WP_36760_2017

misconduct and after conducting detailed enquiry and

for proven misconduct in the enquiry, the Disciplinary

Authority has dismissed the petitioner from service, vide

order, dated 08.10.1986. Aggrieved by the said

dismissal order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal

and the Appellate Authority, vide orders, dated

06.01.1987, was pleased to reject the Appeal. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal

by filing R.P.No.3611 of 1989 and the Tribunal, vide

orders, dated 23.04.1992, was pleased to set aside the

orders of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 08.10.1986

and directed the 3rd respondent to modify the orders of

the dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay by

two incremental stages for a period of two years with

cumulative effect on future increments and pension and

also held that the petitioner is not entitled for back

wages.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had

contended that in pursuance to the orders passed by the AKS, J & JAK, J ::3:: WP_36760_2017

Tribunal in R.P.No.3611 of 1989, dated 23.04.1992, the

respondents have re-instated the petitioner, vide

proceedings, dated 20.07.1992. However, while re-

instating the petitioner, the respondents have not treated

out of employment period of the petitioner for the

purpose of granting increments and for counting service

benefits. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner

has once again approached the Tribunal by filing

O.A.No.1791 of 2010 and the Tribunal was pleased to

allow the said O.A., vide orders, dated 29.07.2013 and

directed the respondents to ensure that the increments

which are due to the petitioner be regularized. The

grievance of the petitioner is that though the orders

passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated

29.07.2013 have become final, the respondents are not

implementing the said orders. In those set of

circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present Writ

Petition.

                                                         AKS, J & JAK, J
                                   ::4::                WP_36760_2017

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had

further contended that once the petitioner is re-instated,

the service benefits for the out of employment period

should be extended and to strengthen his proposition, he

has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Central Bank of India and Others

Vs. Dragendra Singh Jadon 1. He has also contended

that out of employment period must be counted for the

purpose of seniority and promotion. Therefore,

appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by

directing the respondents to implement the orders

passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated

29.07.2013 and allow the Writ Petition.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents had contended that the Tribunal

could not have allowed the O.A.No.1791 of 2010, vide

orders, dated 29.07.2013, with a direction to the

respondents to ensure that increments which are due to

(2022) 8 SCC 378 AKS, J & JAK, J ::5:: WP_36760_2017

the petitioner be regularized. The Tribunal has also

observed that the petitioner is not entitled for back

wages. When the petitioner could not succeed in earlier

round of litigation in R.P.No.3611 of 1989 before the

Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have given a direction

contrary to the law. He contended that increments will

be paid to an employee provided only he renders

satisfactory services. In the instant case, the petitioner

has not worked from 1982 to 1992 that means for a

period of 10 years, he has not rendered service. Hence,

the question of paying increments to the petitioner would

not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the

Writ Petition as the orders of the Tribunal in

O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated 29.07.2013, cannot be

implemented as the same is contrary to the law.

7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions

made by the parties, is of the view that the orders passed

by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1791 of 2010, dated

29.07.2013 could not be implemented, as admittedly, the AKS, J & JAK, J ::6:: WP_36760_2017

petitioner was out of employment from 1982 to 1992 and

the question of granting increments to the petitioner for

out of employment period would not arise. Therefore,

this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ

Petition.

8. With these observations, the Writ Petition is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this

Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 07.11.2023 KRR/ISN