2003 Supreme(AP) 1158

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
P.Chandra Sekhar Naidu - Appellant
Versus
Correspondent, SSRSO Upper Primary school, Srikalahasthi - Respondent
Decided On : 09-20-03

Headnote:Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ; Constitution of India - Article 371-D - Government orders - Rights acquired under Government orders are to be treated as rights acquired and provided by law - when such rights were upheld by courts and decisions obtained finality, such rights could not be withdrawn by Government retrospectively.

       Held : The orders issued by the Government clearly shows that the benefits of orders in R. P. No. 2158 of 1986 released to similarly situated persons as a general principle. From the decisions relied to above it is clear that though cut off date is a relevant factor for releasing the benefits from certain date, but yet in the facts of this case, when once the Tribunal has declared the cut off date as illegal, by order based in r. P. No. 2158 of 1986, in the eye of law, that cut off date continues to be non est from the G. O. Moreover, review was also filed against the said order. Therefore, when once the judgment became final, it would not be appropriate for any other subsequent Tribunal to again consider the same and decide the validity of cut off date. While it is open for the Tribunal to follow the decisions, which became final but trying to ignore the decision and taking a different view is contrary to the judicial precedents and judicial propriety. Thus, we are unable to convince ourselves with the contentions of the learned Additional advocate General in this regard. Accordingly, we hold that the cut off date, which was held to be illegal became final as early as on 17-8-1989 and it cannot be reopened at this point of time seeking to unsettle the settled and crystalised issues. Thus, allowing the applications of the petitioners on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal in R. P. No. 2158 of 1986 are quite legal, valid and they cannot be said to suffer from any illegality.

       Admittedly, the G. O. No. 176 was issued after a lapse of 18 years. When the matters were settled long back and all the persons continued to receive the benefits for the last more than two decades, the reasons given in the said G. O stating that the Language Pandits cannot be allowed to have two benefits namely, under the automatic advancement scheme in G. O. I 17 and scale of Language Pandit grade I in G. O. No. 330. But this reasoning is fallacious on the face of it. As far as automatic advancement scheme is concerned, it is conferred on an employee who has put in 10 and 15 years of service and in order to extricate from the stagnations from the present scales, higher scales were given to them without reference to the higher qualifications. But whereas, in this batch of writ petitions, the posts occupied by the persons who were having higher qualifications and suitable for holding the post of Language Pandits Grade-I are given the scale of Language Pandits Grade-I and that was treated as personal to them. It is also stated that the said posts continued to be treated as Grade-I till the incumbents are regularly promoted to the post of Grade-I pandits. It is also on record that the government has issued instructions that there shall not be further creation of Grade-I posts occupied by the Language Pandits Grade-II with qualifications of Grade-I posts. Further it is admitted that the teachers other than language Pandits Grade-It, who got the benefit of B. Ed, scale continue to get the scale even now and such benefit was not cancelled.

       The Tribunal as we find has not considered this matter in a proper perspective. It took into consideration as to whether the Government has rightly issued the benefits under G. O. Ms. No. 330 and held that G. O. Ms. No. 330 itself could not have been issued to the benefit of the Government employees. Thus, the approach of the tribunal was not a correct and legal approach. When an order was issued in g. O. Ms. No. 330 and no challenge is made from any circle to the said G. O. , it would be inappropriate on the part of the tribunal to go into the validity of the said g. O. and it ought to have confined to the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 176 itself rather than concentrating on G. O. Ms. No. 330. Virtually, the Tribunal had followed the retrograde step and recorded an erroneous finding.