Telangana High Court

M.Veeresham vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

             Writ Petition No.40064 of 2016 and
             Writ Petition (Tr) No.6443 of 2017

COMMON ORDER:

W.P.No.40064 of 2016 has been filed to declare the

proceedings of respondent No.1 bearing Memo No.7860/Emp-

Vig/A2/2011, dated 15.03.2016 as illegal and arbitrary and

consequently direct respondents to refix the pay of the

petitioner as was done in cases of similarly situated persons

vide G.O.Ms.No.26, Labour, Employment, Training and

Factories (Emp) Department dated 03.05.2011 and release the

Annual Grade increments due to him and other monetary

benefits based on such refixation, by granting special

promotional pay scales I & II.

W.P.(Tr).No.6443 of 2017 has been filed to declare that

the applicant is entitled for regularization of his services in the

category if Attender with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Mr.S.Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner is both the writ petitions and learned Government NVSK, J

Pleader for Services - I appearing on behalf of respondents in

both the writ petitions.

3. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions are

same and are filed by the same petitioner, these writ petitions

are disposed by this common order.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

initially appointed as trainee on consolidated pay in

M/s.Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited, Patancheru during the

year 1976. On completion of 240 days of service, he was

absorbed as regular employee and he worked till closure of

M/s.Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited. Thereafter, services of

the applicant had been retrenched, but no retrenchment

compensation was paid. As the petitioner has completed 15

years, petitioner has submitted a representation to the

respondent/authorities requesting to absorb him in

Government Department, as the Government issued certain

guidelines for absorption of surplus/retrenched employees of

Public Sector Undertaking into Government Departments.

Thereafter, respondent No.3 considered the representation of NVSK, J

the petitioner and issued proceedings dated 04.08.1995 for

appointment of petitioner as Attender and he was allotted to

respondent No.2, thereafter respondent No.3 issued

proceedings on 07.08.1995, appointing the petitioner as

Attender and accordingly he joined and by now petitioner had

completed more than 25 years of service in the office of

respondent No.5 and prior to that he had already 15 years of

service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

nearly 200 retrenched employees of Andhra Pradesh Scooters

Limited were absorbed in Panchayat Raj Department and

appears to have been further promoted.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner's services

was unjustifiably terminated vide proceedings of respondent

No.5 dated 14.09.1995. Aggrieved over the same, petitioner

has approached Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal vide

O.A.No.6302 of 1995 and the Tribunal vide its order dated

18.03.1996 has stayed the said proceedings of respondent

No.5 and thereafter applicant has been working by discharging NVSK, J

his duties as Attender continuously. However, O.A. was

dismissed on 05.10.1999 but the petitioner was not informed

about the same and the petitioner was allowed to continue

which was presumed by the petitioner that the termination

order dated 14.09.1995 was deemed to have been revoked. In

view of the same, applicant prays that he is entitled for

regularization of service as Attender since he has completed 25

years of service without any complaint whatsoever. It is further

submitted that petitioner is drawing regular pay scales and

also revised pay scales of 2003 is applicable to the petitioner.

It is submitted that respondents are threatening the petitioner

for termination of the services, aggrieved over the same, the

petitioner filed O.A.No.1530 of 2006 before the Andhra

Pradesh Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted

an order of status quo vide order dated 16.03.2006 and

petitioner was allowed to continue in service conditionally for

14 days.

7. A separate counter affidavit have been filed on behalf

respondents in which it is submitted that the petitioner was

appointed as Attender vide proceedings dated 07.08.1995 and NVSK, J

was posted in Government Industrial Training Institute in Old

City, Hyderabad and subsequently on the ground that he was

appointed in contravention to Act 2 of 1994, he was

terminated vide proceedings dated 14.09.1995. Aggrieved by

the termination, petitioner filed O.A.6302 of 1996 and the

Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal granted stay and the

petitioner continued in service till 18.03.2006 whereas O.A.

was dismissed on 18.03.2006, consequently petitioner was

terminated vide proceedings dated 18.03.2006. Aggrieved by

the action of Commissioner, Employment and Training, the

petitioner filed O.A.No.1530 of 2006, duly suppressing the fact

of O.A.No.6302 of 1996. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted an

order of status quo vide order dated 16.03.2006 and petitioner

was allowed to continue in service conditionally for 14 days.

Thereafter, respondent No.2 therein has filed counter in

O.A.No.1530 of 2006 and Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal

has extended the status quo order until further orders and no

orders have been passed till date.

8. It is further submitted in the counter that as per

G.O.Ms.No.26 LET&F (Emp) Department dated 03.05.2011, NVSK, J

the Government has permitted the Department to re-fix the

pay of 10 Nos. erstwhile employees of Andhra Pradesh

Scooters Limited who were absorbed in Employment and

Training Department to effect the revised pay scales 1986 on

par with benefits given to the employees absorbed in

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department. However,

in G.O.Ms.No.234, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development

Department dated 01.05.1993, the name of the petitioner was

not included as per G.O.Ms.No.26, as petitioner was

terminated from service and that he is continuing in service

based upon the interim order dated 29.03.2006, as such the

decision not to include the petitioner name in the G.O. is

correct.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations dated

13.06.2011, 12.07.2011 and 12.09.2011 to the then RDD (A),

Hyderabad requesting to extend the benefits on par with

employees to M/s.Andhra Pradesh Scooters Limited,

Hyderabad. Thereafter, petitioner has filed O.A.No.7913 of

2011 seeking direction to the respondents to refix the pay of

the applicant as was done in cases of similarly situated NVSK, J

persons and to release annual grade increments and other

monetary benefits due to him. The Tribunal vide order dated

27.09.2011 disposed of the said O.A., directing the

respondents therein to consider the representations of the

petitioner dated 13.06.2011, 12.07.2011 and 12.09.2011 and

pass appropriate orders as per Rules and instructions

contained in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 03.05.2011 within a period

of eight (8) weeks and the said O.A. was disposed of.

10. Thereafter, the then Regional Deputy Director (A),

Hyderabad instructed respondent No.3 to regularize the

service of petitioner, who is in the office of Subordinate ITI, Old

City, Hyderabad and implement G.O.Ms.No.26 dated

03.05.2011. It is further submitted that the petitioner was

already terminated from service and is only continuing in

service based upon the interim order dated 29.03.2006 and

the case is pending against his termination and respondent

No.2 herein has cancelled the order issued by the then RDD

(A), Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 03.08.2015 as the order

was issued without examining the eligibility. Further

respondent No.2 also issued orders to cancel the pay fixation NVSK, J

proceedings issued by respondent No.3, since instructions

given were not correct.

11. As regards the representations of the petitioner dated

13.06.2011, 12.07.2011 and 12.09.2011, it is informed that

petitioner was already terminated from service, however,

continued in service based upon the interim order dated

29.03.2006 and that the petitioner has now retired from the

service on 31.02.2017. It is further submitted that respondent

No.2 directed respondent No.3 for release of General Provident

Fund for an amount of Rs.5,71,000/- pending from the year

2017.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his

case referred to an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of The State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhai

Dhanjibhai Patel 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

dismissed Special Leave Petition filed by the State questioning

the orders passed by the Chairman directing the respondents

to pay pensionary benefits to an Ad-hoc employee who was

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187 NVSK, J

retired after rendering 30 years of service and the same is

extracted hereunder:

"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.

In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.

Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

13. In the case on hand, the petitioner was terminated

from service vide proceedings No.C/153/95 dated 14.09.1995

on the ground that he was appointed in contravention to Act NVSK, J

2/1994. Thereafter, petitioner has filed O.A.No.6302/1996

contesting the dismissal. The Andhra Pradesh Appellate

Tribunal granted stay on 18.03.1996 and the petitioner

continued till 18.03.2006 and the said O.A.No.6302 of 1996

was dismissed on 16.02.2000 in favour of Department and

consequently petitioner was terminated from service on

18.03.2006. Aggrieved by the said action, petitioner has filed

O.A.No.1530 of 2006 suppressing the facts of O.A.No.6302 of

1996 wherein interim order of status quo was issued on

16.03.2006 and he was allowed to continue in service

conditionally for a period of 14 days. However, respondent

No.2 filed counter affidavit and Andhra Pradesh Appellate

Tribunal vide order dated 29.03.2006 extended the interim

orders until further orders.

14. The main grievance of the petitioner is for re-fixation

of service, however, the petitioner has continued in service

based on the order of status quo and retired from service on

31.10.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Talsibhai NVSK, J

Dhanjibhai Patel (cited supra), pensionary benefits may be

extended to the petitioner.

15. In the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar

Pradesh 2, where the petitioner therein also suppressed the

material facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:

"In Prestige Lights Ltd. V. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, L.J. in R v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners (1917) 1 K.B. 486, and observed:

"In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full

(2010) 2 SCC 114 NVSK, J

facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.

The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."

16. It is to be noted that O.A.No.6302 of 1995 was

dismissed for default on 16.02.2000, however, the petitioner

has been allowed to continue and the petitioner was under the

presumption that termination order dated 14.09.1995 was

deemed to have been revoked and completed nearly about 25

years of service. No steps were taken to revive the said O.A., as

such the submission of the petitioner that the termination

order dated 14.09.1995 was presumed to be revoked cannot be

the basis for the reliefs claimed by the petitioner.

17. That apart, the petitioner continued service in terms

of the status quo orders dated 16.03.2006 passed in NVSK, J

O.A.No.1530 of 2006 which was extended until further orders.