Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 536
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
P.Venkatanna and others - Petitioners
Versus
District Collector, Mahabubnagar District and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.31901 of 2018
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah
The retrospective termination of services and violation of principles of natural justice led to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Termination of Services - AP (Andhra Area) Village Officers Services Rules, 1969, AP (Telangana Area) Village Officers Services Rules, 1978, AP Village Revenue Assistants Service Rules, 2005 - The court discussed the irregularities in the appointment of Village Revenue Assistants, the ban on direct recruitment, and the retrospective termination of services. The legal provisions under the mentioned rules were interpreted to determine the eligibility and entitlement of the petitioners, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Village Revenue Assistants, challenged the termination of their services and non-payment of salaries from 01.05.2012 onwards, citing irregularities in their appointment and continuous service till the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed without notice, violated principles of natural justice, and made retrospective termination, which is impermissible. The court also noted the petitioners' continuous service and eligibility for appointment.
Issues: The issues included the irregularities in appointment, retrospective termination, non-payment of salaries, and violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the retrospective termination order was impermissible and violated principles of natural justice. The continuous service and eligibility of the petitioners were considered in setting aside the impugned order.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioners were allowed to continue in service with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
Heard Mr.P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed praying to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.A7/4273/2009, dated 23.03.2018 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as it relates to terminating the services of the petitioners w.e.f., 01.05.2012 and not paying salary to the petitioners from 01.05.2012 onwards as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and mala fide, discloses non application of mind and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned with a direction directing the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioners to continue in service as Village Revenue Assistants in the posts which the petitioners are holding prior to issuing impugned proceedings No. A7/4273/2009, dated 23.03.2018 of the 1st respondent and further direct the respondents to forthwith pay salary to the petitioners from 01.05.2012 onwards.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as follows:
a) Before bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of A.P. Re-organisation Act, 2014 the united State of Andhra Pradesh issued AP (Andhra Area) Village Officers Services Rules, 1969 in G.O.Ms.No.608 Revenue Department, dated 26.06.1969 invoking the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India regulating the service conditions of Village Officers, who are called as Village Revenue Officers and Village Servants, who are now called as Village Revenue Assistants including these posts under clause 1 and clause 2 of the said Rules.
b) Subsequently, united State of Andhra Pradesh issued AP (Telangana Area) Village Officers Services Rules, 1978 in G.O.Ms.No.1293 Revenue (H) Department, dated 26.07.1978, which are similar rules to the earlier G.O Ms. No. 608 and the said Rules came into force w.e.f., 07.12.1977.
c) The Government issued AP Village Revenue Assistants Service Rules, 2005 and substituted the word ‘Village Servant’ to that of ‘Village Revenue Assistants’ in G.O.Ms.No.2176, Revenue Department, dated 05.12.2011. As per Rule 4 of the A.P. Village Servant Service Rules, 2005, the Village Servant shall be appointed for every village or part of village or group of villages and as per Rule 5, the MRO/Tahsildar shall be the appointing authority.
d) The petitioners are fully eligible and are qualified for appointment to the post of Village Servant and they were also appointed by the competent authority and the petitioners were continuing as Village Revenue Assistant’s for that village till the impugned order by proceeding No. A7/4273/2009 dated 23.03.2018, had been issued.
e) At the instance of one outside leader, with his influence, appointment orders were issued to 132 candidates without following the procedure and submitted salary bills of the petitioners’ as well as some other Village Revenue Assistants, who are working not only from 2005 but also prior to 2005.
f) Because of the above mentioned irregularities committed by some of the officers in connivance with private individuals or self style leaders, the petitioners became victims and that the petitioners have not received salaries from 23.03.2008 despite assuming duties. Therefore, the petitioners approached the 1st respondent requesting to pay salaries.
g) As per the advice given by the President of the Association, the petitioners approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and that the Tribunal granted interim order directing the respondents to continue the applicants therein in service and also pay salary for the work done. Subsequently, the 1st responde
