Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, T. Amarnath Goud, JJ.
K. Balarama Raju And Others - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16188 of 20219
Decided On : 27-08-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 214 - A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 - Section 30 (1) - Petition have sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Guidelines issued by the then High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in ROC No.615/SO/RO/2014 dt.01.11.2018 to the extent of extending option only to the officers and staff working in the said High Court as on the said for consideration to be continued in the service and for being duly considered for induction and absorption to the service of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh upon its constitution and for denying exercise of such option to the petitioners who retired from service prior - They seek a direction to: (A) the High Court for the State of Telangana to extend the option to the petitioners also though they have retired prior for the purpose of continuing in the service of the High Court for the State of Telangana or for being considered for induction and absorption to the service of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh with all consequential benefits – Held, We direct that petitioners shall be notionally deemed to have rendered service in the separate High Court of Andhra Pradesh till they attained the age of 60 years, and the said notional service shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of their pensioner benefits by virtue of proviso shall calculate the said benefits and pay the same to the petitioners within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order – Petition Disposed of
JUDGMENT
M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - The petitioners in this Writ Petition have sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Guidelines issued by the then High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in ROC No.615/SO/RO/2014 dt.01.11.2018 to the extent of extending option only to the officers and staff working in the said High Court as on the said date i.e 1.11.2018, for consideration to be continued in the service of the High Court at Hyderabad (which would be the High Court for the State of Telangana) and for being duly considered for induction and absorption to the service of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh upon its constitution and for denying exercise of such option to the petitioners who retired from service prior to 01.11.2018.
They seek a direction to: (A) the High Court for the State of Telangana to extend the option to the petitioners also though they have retired prior to 01.11.2018 for the purpose of continuing in the service of the High Court for the State of Telangana or for being considered for induction and absorption to the service of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh with all consequential benefits.
2. All the petitioners had joined the service of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in various capacities, when a composite State of Andhra Pradesh was in existence prior to 02.06.2014.
Events after 02.06.2014,the date of bifurcation of the composite State of A.P
3. There was a bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 02.06.2014 pursuant to the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 ( for short "the Act" ) and then the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh have come into existence.
4. Section 30 (1) of the Act has two sub-clauses. Clause (a) of SubSection (1) of Section 30 of the Act stated that the High Court at Hyderabad shall be the 'common' High Court for both the successor States till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution read with Section 31 of the Act; and under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 30, it was stated that the Judges of the High Court at Hyderabad for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh holding office immediately before the 'appointed day', shall become on that day the Judges of the common High Court.
The 'appointed day' as stated in the Act for bifurcation of the State
5. The term 'appointed day' is defined in Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act as "the day which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint". It is not in dispute that such notification was issued vide SO 655(E) Ministry of Home Affairs on 04.03.2014 fixing the appointed day as "02.06.2014."
6. From 02.06.2014, thus, the erstwhile High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, became the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for both the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.
The constitution of separate High court for the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f 1.1.2019
7. His Excellency the President of India issued Notification dt.26.12.2018, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 214 of the Constitution of India and Section 30(1)(a) and Section 31(1) and (2) of the Act constituting a separate High Court for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh from 01.01.2019 with its principal seat at Amaravathi in the said State. Thereupon, w.e.f 1.1.2019 the common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for both the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh became the High Court only for the State of Telangana.
The Guidelines framed on 1.11.2018 by the High Court at Hyderabad for both the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh for bifurcation/allocation of employees
8. On 1.11.2018, well before 01.01.2019, when the division of the Common High Court took place, Guidelines were issued by the common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for b
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
