Back
2001 Supreme(AP) 1228
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO
V.Suryanarayana - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-12-01
Headnote:
Employment and Service - Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of absorption of Employees of State government Public Sector Undertakings into public Service Act, 1997 - Section 4 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 309 - Animal Husbandry Dairy development and Fisheries - voluntary retirement - Writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order - Writ petitions arc directed against a common judgment and order passed by State Administrative tribunal filed by petitioner respondent had questioned correctness or otherwise - Petitioner herein had questioned the correctness or otherwise of Animal Husbandry dairy Development and Fisheries department whereby and services of unofficial respondent were regularized Animal Husbandry and fishers Department - Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Corporation for purpose of applying voluntary retirement scheme – Held, Apex court was considering a case of seniority said decision was rendered in peculiar facts of case as concerned employee was working for a period of thirty- two years - Deputation was on a mistaken notion Apex Court held that although he had been deputed to higher post in food and Civil Supplies Department mistakenly but he has discharged his duties and higher responsibilities to satisfaction of all concerned at that distance of time it will be unjust to send him back to hold post in parent department which he was entitled to hold and Tribunal was not right to interfere with action of department in its absorption of appellant as per its own earlier order no such order has been made by State in favor of petitioner - Writ petition dismissed (Para 22)
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
( 2 ) THESE writ petitions arc directed against a common judgment and order dated 25-7-2001 passed by the State Administrative tribunal in O. A. Nos. 8623 of 2000 and 528 and 1847 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the O. A. Nos. 528 and 1847 of 2001 filed by the petitioner herein were dismissed and o. A. No. 8623 of 2000 filed by the unofficial respondent herein was disposed of. FACTS
( 3 ) IN O. A. No. 8623 of 2000 the unofficial respondent herein had questioned the correctness or otherwise of G. O. Rt. No. 393, Animal Husbandry, Dairy development and Fisheries (Fish. I) department, dated 26-12-2000 and the consequential order of the second respondent therein whereby and whereunder the petitioner herein was transferred and posted as Executive Engineer in Head Office of the fisheries Department. In O. A. Nos. 528 and 1847 of 2001, the petitioner herein had questioned the correctness or otherwise of g. O. Ms. No. 127, Animal Husbandry, dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish. I) department, dated 23-12-1999 whereby and whereunder the services of the unofficial respondent herein were regularised and g. O. Ms. No. 116, Animal Husbandry and fishers Department, dated 28-10-1998, was issued whereby and whereunder the petitioner was repatriated to the Andhra pradesh Fisheries Corporation for the purpose of applying voluntary retirement scheme.
( 4 ) THE unofficial respondent herein, who was initially appointed as Draughtsman on 26-12-1962 in the Fisheries Department, was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 1-4-1971 and later as Deputy Executive engineer on ad hoc basis on 1-12-1987 and his services were regularised. The petitioner herein, who joined as Supervisor on 19-12-1978, was promoted as Deputy executive Engineer and later as Executive engineer on 10-7-1992 in the Fisheries corporation. Consequent to the closure of engineering Department of Fisheries corporation, the petitioner was sent to fisheries Department as Executive Engineer on deputation for a period of three years by reason of G. O. Ms. No. 153, dated 18-12-1995, the petitioner was sent on deputation to Fisheries Corporation as executive Engineer. The Government by its order in G. O. Ms. No. 100, dated 31-5-1993 directed the Commissioner of Fisheries and vice-chairman and Managing Director of fisheries Corporation to regularise the surplus employees of the Corporation into the services of Fisheries Department. But, the petitioner was not absorbed.
( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal having regard to the rival pleadings and contentions raised before it, formulated the following questions:"1. Whether the applicant in O. A. No. 528/ 2001 and 1847/2001 is having a right to be absorbed in the Department of fisheries?2. Whether the said applicant who is presently working on deputation in the Department of Fishers can be repatriated to the Corporation, which is on the verge of closure?3. Whether the Government have power to amend rules or issue ad hoc rules, governing the post of Deputy executive Engineer and Executive engineer in the Fisheries Department and also to relax those rules in favour of the applicant in O. A. No. 8623/ 2000, who is the unofficial respondent in O. A. NOS. 528/2001 and 1847/2001 and is there any arbitrariness in such relaxation of Rules?"
( 6 ) IT was held that the employees of the Fisheries Corporation, which is proposed to be closed, could not claim as a matter of right that they should be absorbed in any one of the Government jobs. As regards question No. 3, it was held:"regarding the prayer in O. A. No. 8623/2000, that the transfer of the unofficial respondent therein, as Executive Engineer from Kakinada to the head office of the director of Fishenes at Hyderabad, to be declared, as illegal and arbitrary and that the applicant has to be promoted as Executive engineer into that vacancy, it is to be noted that t
