Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
J. Hanmanthu And Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No.2205 Of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRIRAM POLALI
For the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES I
Termination orders cannot be made retrospectively and must comply with principles of natural justice, necessitating fair procedure and proper notice.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Telangana Village Revenue Assistant Service Rules 2005 - Writ petition was filed seeking to set aside orders deemed unconstitutional and in violation of natural justice. The petitioners were appointed as Village Revenue Assistants; their services were improperly terminated by an order made retroactively. The court found this termination order invalid due to lack of notice and discussion. (Paras 4-8)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard before their termination. The impugned order was made retrospective without proper authority. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners argued that their appointment as Village Revenue Assistants in 2010 was not sanctioned and thus their services were terminated despite recommendations to ratify their positions. The petitioners' previous applications against their termination have been allowed by the court. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the retrospective termination is illegal, directing that the proceedings be set aside and the respondents to decide on the ratification of appointments and the payment of arrears. (Paras 6-8)
Issues: The validity of the termination orders and the failure of authorities to ratify appointments were central questions. (Paras 3-5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that termination orders cannot operate retrospectively without appropriate authority and must adhere to natural justice principles. The decisions taken by the respondents were not based on fair procedure. (Paras 12-14)
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned proceedings set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition for illegal termination and appointment ratification. (Para 2) |
| 2. challenge of termination order in previous writ petitions. (Para 3) |
| 3. court analysis on previous orders affecting current proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court directs respondent to take action for ratification. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Heard Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
“…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction :
Declaring the Proceedings bearing Rc. No. G/1412/2020 dated 02.12.2020. issued by the 5th Respondent and Proceedings bearing Rc.No.A/144/2017, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the 4th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of the principles of natural justice, in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Village Revenue Assistant Service Rules 2005 and in violation of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same;
Declaring the Proceedings bearing A7/4273/2009 dated 23.03.2018 issued by Respondent No. 3 directing the termination of the service of the Petitioners and limiting the arrears of salaries payable to them only upto 30.04.2012, even when a policy decision on the issue of ratification/regularization of their appointment is pending before Respondents No.1 and 2 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same;
Declaring the inaction on the part of Respondents No. 1 and 2 in failing to take a decision on the issue of ratification/ regularization of the appointment of the Petitioners as Village Revenue Assistants right from the year 2010 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in abdication of their duty and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to take a decision on the said issue forthwith; and
Consequently, to permit the Petitioners to continue working in the post of Village Revenue Assistant with all consequential benefits till the above issue is resolved by Respondents No.1 and 2 and also to direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary/honorarium from 30.4.2012 till date and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. It is specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Village Revenue Assistants by Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. In the year 2010, Respondent no 3 abruptly terminated the services of some VRAs on the ground that all the appointments made to the post of VRA after 2002 were without the prior sanction of the government. Later, the village servants association made a representation to the Respondent No. 1 seeking ratification of the appointments of VRAs. Respondent no. 1 forwarded the said representation to respondent 2 & 3 to make detailed report on the subject matter. Respondent no. 3 made a detailed report and submitted to the respondent by recommending the respondent no. 1 to ratify the appointment of VRAs and also to pay the honorarium salary for their services. VRAs approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal filing O.A.No.9350 of 2011, O.A.No.9351 of 2011 and O.A.No.9391 of 2011, seeking a declaration that their appointment is regular and a direction not to terminate their service and pay salary. The hon’ble APAT passed an interim order in the above said applications directing the respondents to continue the applicants therein as VRAs and pay salaries to them until further orders, subsequently on 02.01.2012 APAT made the interim orders absolute but the same was suspended by this court through a writ petition W.P.No.8702 of 2014 p
