Telangana High Court
Potti Sri Ramulu Telugu University vs M.Ramulu on 3 January, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.1165 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2023 passed
in W.P.No.15370 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge,
the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri M. Surendar Rao, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the appellant-University and
Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the 1st respondent.
3. It is the case of the appellant-University that
initially the 1st respondent was appointed as Junior
Assistant on daily wage basis on 10.04.1992. The
alleged selection took place without issuing any open
advertisement or candidates were called for from the
Employment Exchange. Thereafter, his services were
regularised vide proceedings dated 04.03.1995 and his
probation was also declared on 02.04.1997 and finally,
the 1st respondent has retired from service on
::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
29.02.2020. While extending the pension and
pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent, the audit
has raised an objection about the illegal appointment
of the 1st respondent and as to how the pay scales of
Ninth Pay Revision Commission extended to the 1st
respondent. When the appellant-University has not
extended the revised pay scales to the 1st respondent,
on the ground that his appointment was illegal and
contrary to the procedure as set out by the appellant,
the 1st respondent had filed W.P.No.13116 of 2011 and
this Court vide order dated 09.06.2017 allowed the
same and directed the appellant-University to extend
the revised pay scales to the 1st respondent. The
appellant-University vide letter dated 16.01.2020
sought clarification from the Government for issuance
of notification for pension. While the matter stood
thus, the 1st respondent has again filed W.P.No.15370
of 2020 for sanction of pension and pensionary
benefits and other retiral benefits. Without
appreciating any of the contentions raised by the
::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
appellant-University, learned Single Judge vide order
dated 12.04.2023 allowed the said writ petition by
directing the appellant-University to release the
consequential benefits to the 1st respondent. Hence,
the present writ appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellant had contended that when the appointment of
the 1st respondent is contrary to law and illegal,
learned Single Judge ought not to have given a
direction to the appellant-University to pay pension
and pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant had relied upon the law laid down by the
Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Devendra Sharma 1,
State of Punjab v. Bahadur Singh & others 2 and
also judgment of the then Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Lipika Nanda v. Nizam's Institute Of Medical
Sciences 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had
Civil Appeal No.7879 of 2019, dt: 17.10.2019
Civil Appeal No.7347 of 2008, dt:17.12.2008
2001 (2) ALD 660
::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
further contended that in view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court and this Court, illegal appointment of
the 1st respondent cannot be regularised. Therefore,
appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by
setting aside the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and allow the writ appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the 1st respondent had contended that the
1st respondent was initially appointed on daily wage
basis and after undergoing regular selection process,
his services were regularized and he was appointed as
Junior Assistant vide proceedings dated 04.03.1995
and his probation was also declared vide proceedings,
dated 02.04.1997. Learned counsel had further
contended that during the service of the 1st
respondent, the appellant-University has not taken
any steps to cancel his appointment. Learned counsel
had further contended that the issue as to whether the
appointment of the 1st respondent was illegal and
irregular was considered by this Court while extending
::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
the revised pay scales in W.P.No.13116 of 2011, dated
09.06.2017, and learned Single Judge has
categorically held that 'having regard to the fact that
such appointments were made in the year 1995 and
even before such appointments, considerable service
was rendered by the petitioners, at this distance of
time, on the said alleged irregularity in the selection
process, the appointments made in the year 1995
cannot be declared as invalid, and deny the pay
revision benefits'. When once this Court has held that
appointment of the 1st respondent cannot be declared
as invalid, again the appellant-University is taking the
very same stand and denying the pension and
pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent is contrary to
law. Taking note of all the factors into consideration,
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in favour
of the 1st respondent. Therefore, there are no merits in
the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival
submissions made by both the parties, is of the view
::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
that appointment of the 1st respondent was made in
the year 1995, his probation was also declared and he
also retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 29.02.2020. In the interregnum,
the appellant-University has also not taken any steps
to recall the appointment of the 1st respondent alleged
to have been made way back in the year 1995. As long
as the appointment of the 1st respondent is not
recalled, the question of denying the pension and
pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent does not
arise. Moreover, the issue as to whether the
appointment of the 1st respondent is illegal and
irregular was considered by this Court on earlier
occasion in W.P.No.13116 of 2011 and the learned
Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition
in favour of the 1st respondent. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
::7:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending
if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
____________________________________________
JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date:03.01.2024
Prat/rkk
::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_1165_2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date:03.01.2024
prat
