1995 Supreme(AP) 259

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.PARVATHA RAO
E.Uddanda Ramaiah - Appellant
Versus
V.R.S.,y.R.N.College - Respondent
Decided On : 06-13-95

Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 mandates that prior approval of the competent authority should be obtained before retrenching any employee.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF EMPLOYEE - RETRENCHMENT - APPROVAL OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY - SECTION 83 OF ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATION ACT, 1982 - WHETHER MANDATORY - WHETHER SECTION 83 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - WHETHER WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE - WHETHER LACHES OR ACQUIESCENCE - WHETHER ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a lower division clerk in the first respondent college, was appointed as L.D.C. in the college book store on a consolidated pay of Rs.300/- per month until further orders by proceedings dated 28-2-1981 of the principal of that college. Under proceedings dated 30-8-1982 of the principal, he was given the scale of L.D.C. Rs.425-10-455-15-650 with effect from 1-7-1982. About four years later, under proceedings dated 31-12-1986 of the then secretary and correspondent of the college, the said two proceedings of the principal "regarding the appointment of Sri E. Uddanda Ramaiah (petitioner herein) as L.D.C. and fixing the scale of pay as L.D.C. in the college book store, V.R.S. and Y.R.N. College is confirmed subject to the ratification of the governing body" and considering the petitioner's "continuous record of satisfactory service from 28-2-1981 he is transferred into V.R.S. and Y.R.N. College office with effect from today as L.D. Clerk", accepting the recommendation of the principal in his letter dt. 27-12-1986. Since 1982 the petitioner was drawing his salary as per the scale of L.D.C. with increments and DA. etc. Thereafter, under proceedings dated 6-3-1990, the services of the petitioner were terminated cryptically as follows: "as per the resolution of the governing body of V.R.S. and Y.R.N. College committee dated 26-2-1990, your services are not required from the afternoon of 5-4-1990." no prior notice was given; no reason was given. In the affidavit in support of the present writ petition, the petitioner states that the then correspondent of the college told him that similar orders of termination were issued to several employees of the college numbering nearly thirty and that he was assured that he would be re-employed and that the termination orders were being given to all "to weed-out certain unwanted employees". The petitioner states that as he was assured that he would be re-employed, he did not approach this court then, though some other who were not given re-appointment approached this court. Like K. Ammeswara Rao, who was also an L.D.C. and who approached this court by way of W.P. No.3773 of 1990. The petitioner states that by order dated 29-3-1992 this court directed the first respondent college to continue K. Ammeswara Rao in service. That writ petition is still pending. Under proceedings dated 2-7-1990, the then correspondent re-appointed the petitioner as a clerk, but on a temporary basis on consolidated pay for a period The said proceedings read as follows: "Sri E. Uddanda Ramaiah is appointed as Clerk from 2-7-90 till 31-3-91 subject to the approval of the governing body. He will be paid consolidated salary of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month. This order is purely temporary and his services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason." in his affidavit the petitioner states: "while handing over the proceedings dt. 2-7-1990, I was assured by the correspondent that I will be given scale of pay and all arrears due to me as soon as the case is settled down. I therefore, did not approach this hon'ble court to challenge the order dt. 3-6-1990 (obviously, the correct date is 6-3-1990) or the subsequent order dated 2-7-1990 appointing me only for a period of one year on a consolidated pay. My services were thereafter continued by proceedings dated 26-3-1991 and 27-9-1991." proceedings dated 26-3-1991 referred to by the petitioner were of the then secretary and correspondent of the college and, referring to the petitioner's application dated 25-3-1991, it was stated therein that with the recommendation of the principal his services were renewed up to 15-6-1992, i.e., for next academic year. The petitioner states that thereafter under proceedings of the secretary and correspondent of the college dated 3-4-1992 he was informed peremptorily that he was relieved on the afternoon of 3-4-1992 "as per the appointment order issued". Subsequently, the principal by memo dated 20-4-1992 required the petitioner to handover all the records pertaining to his seat to one K. Venkateswarlu, senior assistant, immediately. Even then the petitioner did not run to this court because, in his own words, "as I was hopeful that the first respondent would continue me in service, I did not approach this Hon'ble Court". However, that complacence did not last long. To his "utter shock and surprise" he received a notice of caveat application filed by the first respondent and then only he realised that he was being hoodwinked by the college authorities by making false promises that his services would be regularised and then he woke up from his stupor and approached this court by way of the present writ petition on 18-5-1992 questioning the action of the first respondent in terminating his services under proceedings dated 6-3-1990 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (the Act for short) and also the action of the first respondent in proceedings dated 3-4-1992 as bad and seeking a consequential direction to the first respondent to continue him in service as L.D.C. and to pay him arrears of wages to which he is entitled from 3-3-1990.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. The court directed the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect with increments from the date he was terminated from service under proceedings dated 6-3-1990 of the secretary and correspondent of the first respondent college, which he would have received but for the said termination, deducting the amounts he was paid when he was employed from time to time by the management of the first-respondent after 6-3-1990 for periods of less than a year. The petitioner's salary etc., for the period he was kept out of service shall be paid within three months from the date of the order.

Issues: 1. Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982? 2. Whether the first respondent is liable to pay the petitioner's salary etc., for the period he was kept out of service?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. Section 83 of the Act mandates that prior approval of the competent authority should be obtained before retrenching any employee. The first respondent did not obtain such approval before terminating the petitioner's services. Therefore, the termination is bad and has to be set aside. 2. Yes, the first respondent is liable to pay the petitioner's salary etc., for the period he was kept out of service. The petitioner is entitled to full salary along with increments from back date. The first respondent has to pay the petitioner's salary etc., for the period he was kept out of service within three months from the date of the order.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed with costs payable by the first respondent. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-, payable to Sri Ramesh Ranganadhan, the learned counsel who appeared and argued for the petitioner at the final hearing of the writ petition at the instance of the Court in view of Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy reporting on 30-12-1993 that the petitioner took away the bundle stating that he would engage another counsel. The said fee shall be paid by the first respondent to Sri Ramesh Ranganadhan within six weeks from today.