Despite suppression of material facts and prior procedural lapses, courts enforce final unchallenged tribunal orders against state authorities as model employers; monthly payments renew causes of action and systemic delay does not defeat relief.

JUDGMENT

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the appellants; Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.1-State of Andhra Pradesh, and; Mr. Sateesh Galla, learned counsel for respondent no.2-Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation.

2. Leave granted.

2.1 The lis before us is, at the core, simply one of many, wherein despite an order in its favour that has long attained finality, the successful party is yet to reap the benefits thereof. While nestled in the service law category, this appeal concerns implementation, rather than adjudication.

BACKGROUND:

3. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition No.44392 of 2018 preferred by them before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) vide Order dated 25.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Division Bench [2025 SCC OnLine AP 1329]. By way of the said Writ Petition, the appellants had sought implementation of the Order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the learned (erstwhile) Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O. A. No.5971 of 2012. The relief granted to the appellants by the Tribunal having remained unimplemented, the appellants invoked contempt jurisdiction before the Tribunal, which petitions came to be dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond limitation i.e., after the lapse of more than one year of the date when the cause of action had accrued. Thereafter, the appellants moved the High Court through the Writ Petition adverted to supra.

3.1 There is a chequered aspect to the litigative history of this case, which the High Court has duly narrated as under:

‘9. Initially, the petitioners filed C.A.No.1986 of 2013 in O.A.No.5971 of 2012, which was dismissed as barred by limitation, by order dated 10.09.2015. The petitioners, later on filed M.A. No. 1835 of 2016, in E.A.SR No.9013 of 2016 in O.A., for condonation of delay in filing execution petition, after a delay of about four years. The M.A., was allowed, by order dated 11.01.2017, on the condition, that each petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,000/-to the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority within eight weeks, and in the event of non-compliance, the M.A., shall stand dismissed and E.A.SR., shall stand automatically rejected.

10. The order dated 11.01.2027 reads as under:-

“In the circumstances stated in the Miscellaneous Application, the delay of four years, four months and ten days shall stand condoned on condition of the applicants 1 to 27 paying at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of eight weeks from today; and in default, this Miscellaneous Application shall stand dismissed and the EASR shall stand rejected automatically.”

11. Challenging the order dated 11.01.2017, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32682 of 2017 before this Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners, vide order dated 22.09.2017 after the petitioners' counsel made such request, though he had presented arguments at some length.

12. The order dated 22.09.2017 reads as under:-

“This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

"... to issue Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records in relating to orders passed in MA No.1835/2016 in EASR No.9013/2016 in OA No.5971/2012 dt. 11.01.2017 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbi