Point of law: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :

“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature 2nd of Writ of Mandamus declaring the transfer order issued by the Respondent vide Proceedings No.Estt-4/112/2019 dated 23-11-2020 and the consequential orders issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Proceedings No.DSJO/EG/RJMV/1940/2020 dated 26-11-2020 transferring the petitioner from Sub Jail, Peddapuram, East Godavari District to Anantapuram District as wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Presidential Order and ban order on transfers and consequently declare that the Petitioner is not liable to be transferred from Peddapuram, East Godavari District to Anantapuram District during the ban period”.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Warder in Central Prison, Hyderabad on 27.10.1999. While the petitioner was working in Central Prison, Hyderabad, he fell sick on 01.01.2000, applied for medical leave. On that ground, the petitioner was terminated from service on 20.05.2000 without following any procedure. Questioning the termination order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5867 of 2000 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The said O.A was disposed of by Order dated 05.04.2004 setting aside the termination order with a direction to the respondents therein to reinstate him into service. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 07.06.2004. Later, he was subjected to departmental enquiry and ‘censure' was awarded against him vide proceedings in CPH/Estt.SA-1/1940/2006, dated 24.02.2006 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad. Later, the petitioner was transferred to Sub-Jail, Pitapuram on 26.05.2007 to his local District as he belongs to East Godavari District local as per the Presidential Order. The petitioner was transferred to Central Prison, Rajahmundry on 30.06.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the present place i.e. Sub Jail, Peddapuram on 21.06.2016.

3. It is further contended that the period between date of termination and the date of reinstatement into service i.e. from 20.05.2000 to 07.06.2004 was not regularized in spite of several representations made by the petitioner to the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file O.A.No.2377 of 2006 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad for regularization of period from 20.05.2000 to 07.06.2004 as on duty, as the termination order was set aside by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. After elaborate contest, the said O.A. was allowed by Order dated 18.01.2020 directing the respondents therein to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of appointment and keep the petitioner on probation from that date. The respondents were further directed to treat the period upto the date of termination as medical leave and pass orders as per F.R.54-A regarding the period from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement.

4. When the orders passed in the above O.A.No.2377 of 2006 were not implemented by the respondents, the petitioner filed C.A.No.1839 of 2014 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. When the Tribunal was about to order appearance of the respondents, the respondents supplied copy of proceedings, dated 31.07.2010 stating that his services were regularized from the date of his joining i.e. 27.10.1999, as per the orders of A.P. Administrative Tribunal. But practically, the respondents have not treated the period from date of termination to date of reinstatement into service as on duty and other consequential benefits are not being given to him. Finally, the petitioner gave a representation on 24.05.2020 for regularising the period between the date