2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 22815
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. MADHAVI DEVI, J
T. PADMA HYD – Appellant
Versus
PRL SECY. TO GOVT. LAW LA AND JHOMECOURTS DEPT. HYD – Respondent
WP(TR)/6115/2017
Amendments to service conditions cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of an employee without prior notice.
Headnote:(A) Government of Andhra Pradesh - FR 14-C - Writ petition challenging the action of the respondents regarding lien on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor - Termination order set aside by High Court - Petitioner continues to hold lien on the post - Respondents directed to reconsider and provide posting as Assistant Public Prosecutor. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Service Conditions - Amendment of service conditions cannot be applied retrospectively to the detriment of an employee - Government servant must be put on notice before any prejudicial changes. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor and later joined as District Judge on a temporary basis. Following termination orders, the petitioner challenged the memo stating she no longer held a lien on her previous post.
Findings of Court:
The memo declaring the petitioner could not hold a lien due to termination orders is not sustainable; she continues to hold the lien.
Issues: Whether the petitioner retains her lien on the Assistant Public Prosecutor position despite the termination order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lien is not automatically terminated unless the probation in the new department is declared or a promotion occurs, emphasizing that amendments to service conditions cannot be applied retrospectively.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in holding that the petitioner is not having a lien on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor as illegal, bad and arbitrary, particularly in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.1554 of 2007, dated 22.08.2008, whereunder the termination order was set aside, which is the basis for issuance of the Memo dated 27.04.2007 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor on 16.05.1998 at Nampally Criminal Court. Thereafter, on the establishment of Fast Track Courts, the petitioner was appointed as District Judge on temporary basis vide G.O.Rt.No.1798, dated 06.10.2003. According to the said G.O., the said appointment will cease on 31.03.2005 and be governed by the A.P.State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for adhoc appointments of 2001. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the judicial service and after the expiry of the term on 31.03.2005, the petitioner and others were allowed to continue pending extension and vide G.O.Rt.No.430, dated 27.03.2006, the said term was extended for another five years from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2010. It is submitted that in the meantime, the lien of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor continued and in fact, while she was working as District Judge, the Director of Prosecution issued proceedings dated 20.11.2004 declaring the probation of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the Criminal Appeal No.971 of 2005, has made certain observations against the petitioner, the Hon’ble High Court decided to terminate the services of the petitioner as District and Sessions Judge and accordingly the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 29.12.2006, terminating the services of the petitioner as Additional District Judge and the petitioner was relieved from the post of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Sangareddy. On being relieved from the said post, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 06.01.2007 for posting her as Assistant Public Prosecutor and the said representation was forwarded to the Government on 12.01.2007 seeking a clarification on the lien of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutor. In the said letter, the Director of Prosecutions referred to the Government Memo dated 16.06.2004 and thereafter, the Director of Prosecutions issued a Memo dated 27.04.2007 informing the petitioner that she is no more in the cadre of Assistant Public Prosecutor and her claim for posting as Assistant Public Prosecutor does not arise.
3. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.2721 of 2007 before the Tribunal submitting that there was a memo issued by the Government on 16.06.2004 stating that in no circumstances the lien of the Government servants be suspended and hence the petitioner should be continued as Assistant Public Prosecutor. In view thereof, on 09.05.2007, the impugned memo dated 27.04.2007 was suspended by the Tribunal. In the meantime, the petitioner had also challenged the termination order vide G.O.Rt.No.180, dated 29.12.2006 in W.P.No.1554 of 2007 and the same was allowed on 22.08.2008, declaring the G.O.Rt.No.180, dated 29.12.2006, as void and unsustainable in law and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with resultant benefits such as salary and emoluments, including arrears w.e.f. 29.12.2006 till the date of reinstatement.
It is submitted that the Government implemented the same vide G.O.Rt.No.611 Law Department, dated 15.04.2009, but after 31.03.2010, the tenure of the petitioner was not extended further. However, on the ground that the petitioner has been reinstated into service, O.A.No.2721 of 2007 was closed by the Tr