Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.
A.D.P. Rajkumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. No. 1922 of 2021
Decided On : 30-06-2021
SENIOR ASSISTANT - SENIORITY - G.O.Ms.Nos.880 AND 881 - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - MONETARY BENEFITS - SERVICE BENEFITS - SENIORITY - RATIO DECIDENDI - WRIT PETITION - ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Assistant in the Commercial Taxes Department, challenged the seniority of respondent Nos.3 and 4, who were initially absorbed as Junior Assistants in a State Government undertaking and later promoted to Senior Assistants through G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881. The petitioner argued that these Government Orders were illegal and violative of his seniority rights.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881 were set aside in their entirety by a Division Bench of the High Court and that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were only entitled to what was offered to them under G.O.Ms.No.72 with effect from 20.01.2021 and with prospective effect. The Court further held that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which partially modified the Division Bench order, did not interfere with the entire judgment of the Division Bench nor did it say that G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881 were valid.
Issues: 1. Whether G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881 were valid and conferred seniority benefits to respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the date of their joining in the Department? 2. Whether the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the entire judgment of the Division Bench and validated G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority over respondent Nos.3 and 4?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881 were completely contrary to the statutory rules, the orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal, and the principles of law governing the rehabilitation of persons from Corporations that are wound up. The Court held that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were not entitled to the benefit of absorption in the category of Senior Assistants with retrospective effect. 2. The High Court held that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only modified the Division Bench order to the extent of granting monetary and service benefits to respondent Nos.3 and 4, but it did not interfere with the Division Bench's finding that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were not entitled to seniority benefits. 3. The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to seniority over respondent Nos.3 and 4 as the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were only entitled to what was offered to them under G.O.Ms.No.72 with effect from 20.01.2001 and with prospective effect.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881, and directed the respondents to restore the seniority of the petitioner by reckoning the service of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 only as per G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 20.01.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.1369 dated 30.12.2003 and to immediately review the promotion.
JUDGMENT
D V S S Somayajulu, J. - This writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:
(a) Declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing CCST's Ref.No.C2/02/2018, dated 05.05.2020; and 05.05.2020 as arbitrary, contrary to the judgment in Writ Petition No.6640 of 2014 and batch, dated 02.12.2016 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh and C.A.No.3300 of 2018 dated 2.5.2019 illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction and thereby violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(b) Consequently, direct the Respondents to restore the seniority position of the Petitioner as prevailing prior to the issuance of the orders impugned herein and reckoning the seniority of the Respondents 3 and 4 herein only from date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.72 Rev.(CT.III) Department dated 20.1.2001 and G.O.Ms.No.1369 Rev. (CT.III) Department dated 30.12.2003 and review the promotions made based on the revision of seniority attempted by the orders impugned herein;
(c) Declare that this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed with exemplary costs for having thrust this unwarranted lis on the Petitioner and direct payment of the same by State and to ensure accountability recover the costs so awarded from the personal funds of the officers held responsible including the incumbent of the office of the 2nd Respondent as on the date of passing of the orders impugned herein and pass such other orders.."
2. The petitioner before this Court is seeking the above reliefs.
3. As per this writ petition, he was absorbed as Senior Assistant in the Commercial Taxes Department on 29.12.1999. Later, he got promotions and by the date of filing the writ petition, he is a Superintendent Grade-I. The un-official respondent Nos.3 and 4, according to the writ petitioner, were working in a State Government undertaking called "Andhra Pradesh Rice Fed", which was closed down. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from Andhra Pradesh Rice Fed were appointed because of the benevolent attitude of the Government as Junior Assistants on 29.11.1993 and 24.02.1994 respectively in the Commercial Tax Department. As per the pleadings, the respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are on the verge of retrenchment were absorbed as Junior Assistants in November, 1993 and February 1994. However, after joining the Government service, they prevailed upon the Government to issue certain Government Orders by which they were promoted as Senior Assistants. G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 20.01.2001 was issued in case of respondent No.4 and G.O.Ms.No.1369 dated 30.12.2003 was issued in case of respondent No.3 With certain conditions under the said GOs the respondent No.3 was appointed as a Senior Assistant on 21.05.2004 and respondent No.4 was appointed as a Senior Assistant on 05.02.2005.
4. The petitioner claims the seniority in the post of Senior Assistant vis-a-vis respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, because of the correspondence etc., continued by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Government issued G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881 dated 25.06.2007 conferring "retrospective seniority" with benefits to respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the date of their joining into the Government Department namely Commercial Tax Department i.e from 29.11.1993 and 24.02.1994. As a result of this Government action, they were placed far above the petitioner and others in the seniority list. This was the subject matter of the challenge in Original Application No.4893 of 2008 and the batch before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal upheld these two Government Orders. Against the same, W.P.No.6640 of 2014 and batch were filed. This High Court by its order dated 02.12.2016 allowed the writ petition and set aside G.O.Ms.Nos.880 and 881. The matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which partially modified the order passed by this High Court. As per the petitioner, by balancing the in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
