Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY
Battula Ratna Babu S/o Late Satyanandam – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging alteration of regularization dates. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on notice and delay in proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning against arbitrary changes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. impugned proceedings set aside. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed declaring the proceedings vide R.C.No.A2/1222/2018-1 dated 03.02.2023 and RC.No.A2/1222/2018 dated 14.06.2023 issued by 3rd Respondent by revising the dates of completion of probation and regularization by cancelling dates of declaration of probation and regularization issued earlier and ordered for recovery of excess amount paid and the consequential memo in RC.No.Spl/A1/2023 dated 19.06.2023 issued by the 4th Respondent and the 2nd Respondent informing the rejection by the Government vide Memo No.FIN02-11036/39/2023-A SEC-DTA dated 01.09.2023 as arbitrary and illegal.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:
The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Accountant on compassionate grounds and allotted to District Treasury Office vide proceedings RC.No.4665/10-B5 dated 09.10.2010 with a condition that the Petitioner should acquire certificate course o
Alteration of regularization dates after significant delay and without notice violates principles of natural justice, rendering such actions arbitrary and illegal.
Regularisation of service must be prospective to avoid affecting the seniority of regularly appointed employees, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
The absence of justifiable grounds and failure to adhere to principles of natural justice rendered the withdrawal of service regularization unlawful, necessitating reconsideration of the effective da....
The denial of regularization for long-serving employees on technical grounds is arbitrary, prioritizing fairness and the welfare principle in employment.
The court ruled that delay in addressing a regularization request does not negate the right to retrospective benefits, especially under government orders and constitutional provisions.
All similarly situated employees are entitled to identical promotion benefits unless exceptions like delay or acquiescence apply, emphasizing the need for equal treatment under service law.
Irregular appointments may be regularized after prolonged continuous service, as technical grounds cannot undermine substantive employment rights.
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
