Telangana High Court
P.Jaya Prakash, vs The Government Of Telangana, on 19 March, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
W.A.No. 1138 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders of the learned
Single Judge in W.P. (Tr) No. 2700 of 2017 dt.11-04-2023.
2. Heard Smt. K. Rajyalakshmi, learned Counsel for the
appellants and the larned Government Pleader for Services-I,
appearing for the respondents.
3. It has been contended by the appellants that they have
responded to D.S.C. 1989 Notification for the post of Special Grade
Teachers (SGTs) and the appellants, after undergoing regular selection
process, were selected for appointment to the post of SGTs. However,
for various reasons, the respondents could not give appointment orders
to the respondents on the ground of various litigations which are
pending before the Tribunal and High Court. Finally, the respondents
were pleased to issue Government Memo on 30-04-2008 wherein the
appellants were appointed as SGTs.
2 AKS,J & RRN,J
4. The grievance of the appellants was that though they
were selected in pursuance to the DSC 1989 selections, they were not
treated on par with such of those persons, who were selected in
pursuance to the DSC-1989. The appellants have submitted a detailed
representation to the respondents to count their service from
01-08-1996 to 12-07-2008 as it was done in the case of Sri
M. Ratnakar and 18 others who have approached the Tribunal by filing
O.A.No.5233 of 2004, and the Tribunal vide orders dt.21-11-2007 was
pleased to direct the respondents to appoint Mr. M.Ratnakar and others
as SGTs by extending the benefits as it was done in the case of
persons, who were appointed during 1996 and the appellants were also
identically situated in their place and they also sought to extend the
relief as it was done in the case of Mr. M.Ratnakar and others. But the
respondents have rejected the case of the appellants vide proceedings
dt.24-03-2014 without appreciating that the appellants are also
identically situated with that of Mr. M.Ratnakar and others. Aggrieved
by the same, the appellants have approached the Tribunal by filing
O.A. During pendency of the said O.A., the Tribunal itself got
abolished for the State of Telangana, then the O.A. which was pending
before the Tribunal was transferred to the High Court in the form of
Transfer Writ Petition No.2700 of 2017 and the learned Single Judge
3 AKS,J & RRN,J
of this Court was pleased to dismiss the said Writ petition without
appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P.
and others v. B. Aswathama and others 1, wherein a Division Bench
of this Court held that if the appointment orders are not given on time,
then that is not the fault of employee but that is the fault of employer
and with those observations, the Writ Petition was dismissed
confirming the orders of the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Single
Judge ought to have set aside the rejection orders dt.24-03-2014 and
directed the respondents to re-examine the case of the appellants for
extending service benefits such as automatic advancement scheme and
other pensionary benefits by duly taking into account the fact that the
appellants were recruited in pursuance to the DSC 1989.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing
for the respondents, had contended that though the appellants have
been selected in pursuance to the DSC 1989 selection, since the
appointment orders were given only in the year 2008, the question of
considering their case from 1996 onwards would not arise.
2022 (6) ALD 573 (TS) (DB)
4 AKS,J & RRN,J
7. This Court having considered the rival submissions made
by the learned counsel on either side is of the considered view that the
appellants were selected in pursuance to DSC-1989 and persons who
got selected along with the appellants were given appointment orders
in 1996 and for the reasons best known to the appellants, the
appointment letters were belatedly issued to the appellants only in the
year 2008. Therefore, it is not the fault of appellants as they were not
given appointment orders in-time. Therefore, the respondents are
directed to consider the case of the appellants for grant of automatic
advancement scheme benefit by taking into account the fact that the
appellants were recruited in pursuance to DSC-1989 along with
persons who were recruited along with such persons who were
appointed during 1996 and the learned Single Judge ought to have
considered for granting relief in favour of the appellants. Since the
appellants are similarly situated to that of Mr. M.Ratnakar and others
on the ground of discrimination, the learned Single Judge ought to
have interfered. Therefore, the orders of the learned Single Judge are
liable to set aside and accordingly they are set aside and the
respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellants for
counting their service from 1996 to 2008 for the purpose of the benefit
5 AKS,J & RRN,J
by extending automatic advancement scheme and other service
benefits.
8. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No
costs.
9. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
_________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Dt. 19.03.2024
Kvr
