Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Commissioner vs Smt K Parvathi Tenali 4 Oth on 18 December, 2025
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
APHC010433892012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 7631/2012
Between:
1. THE COMMISSIONER, PONNUR MUNICIPALITY, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, PONNUR MUNICIPALITY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SMT K PARVATHI TENALI 4 OTH, W/O. A. RAGHAVA RAO, RETIRED
BALWADI TEACHER, R/O. D.NO. 14
14-4-104
104 (2), OPP. INDIAN BANK,
MORRISPET,
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT - 522 001
3. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF A.P.,
HYDERABAD - 500 001.
4. THE AUDIT OFFICER, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, GUNTUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT - 522 001.
5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS
REGISTRAR, PURANIHAVELI, HYDERABAD - 500 001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Certiorari, calling
alling for the records relating to and connected with order of
2
CMR,J & GTK,J
W.P.No.7631 of 2012
the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dated 22-01-2010 passed in
O.A.No.5744/2007 and quash the same and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 9677 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the operation of the order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dated
22-01-2010 passed in O.A.No.5744/2007 and to pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP 37023 OF 2012
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
expedite the hearing of the writ petition
IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 5983 OF 2015
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities
2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA
2. .
3
CMR,J & GTK,J
W.P.No.7631 of 2012
The Court made the following:
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The Ponnur Municipality represented by its Commissioner challenges the order dated 22.01.2010 passed in O.A.No.5744 of 2007 on the file of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby, the Tribunal has declared that the services of the 1st respondent herein are to be treated as deemed regularization from the date of her appointment and that she is entitled for regular scale of pay from date of her appointment till the date of her retirement and directed for release of her pensionary benefits in accordance with rules and further directed the respondents to pass consequential orders in accordance with rules within eight weeks from date of receipt of the order and release her arrears of revised pay scales and pensionary benefits.
2. Heard Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. V.Maheshwar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Harinath Reddy Somagutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. None appeared for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the application filed in O.A.No.5744 of 2007 before the Tribunal in this writ petition also for the sake of convenience.
4. Facts of the case germane for disposal of this writ petition may briefly be stated as follows:
The applicant was originally appointed as Higher Grade Teacher in Municipal Elementary Muslim School (Balura Saka) as per proceedings issued to that effect on 07.07.1984. Subsequently, on the ground that she is not appointed on regular basis as per rules, proceedings are issued discharging 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.7631 of 2012 her from the service on 22.04.1986. The applicant has challenged the same before the High Court by way of filing writ petition No.5264 of 1986. Interim orders were granted in her favour in the said writ petition and the applicant continued in service on the basis of the said orders. But, the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the High Court has no jurisdiction in service matters. She filed R.P.No.1220 of 1987 before the erstwhile Tribunal and the Tribunal granted interim orders. The applicant continued in service and finally the said R.P. was allowed on 06.09.1989 and discharge orders passed against the applicant were set-aside, leaving it open to the respondents therein to follow the procedure and to pass appropriate orders. But the respondents therein did not follow the procedure and the directions issued in R.P.No.1220 of 1987 and batch.
5. Thereafter, the applicant has filed O.A.No.4945 of 1999 to regularize her services. The said O.A. was allowed. It is held by the Tribunal in the said O.A.No.4945 of 1999 that the applicant has been appointed as per rules and after sponsoring her name by the employment exchange and following the selection process and further held that she has not been given the minimum scales and as per order dated 02.08.2004, the Tribunal directed that the services of the applicant are to be regularized taking into consideration the service rendered by her for many years, by sending her to the TSLC training as per G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 01.04.1999.
6. However, her services are not regularized as directed in O.A.No.4945 of 1999 and she was not sent for TSLC training. Ultimately, she retired and no service benefits are paid regularizing her services.
7. Therefore, the applicant has filed the present O.A.No.5744 of 2007 claiming for the services benefits. The Municipality filed counter in the said O.A. before the Tribunal contending that her initial appointment is not in accordance with rules and she was appointed in irregular manner and she is not a regular employee and thereby contended that she is not entitled to any 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.7631 of 2012 minimum scale or the service benefits on par with a regular employee. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, turned down the said contention and held that already in O.A.No.4945 of 1999, the Tribunal has clearly held that she was appointed as per rules after she was sponsored by the employment exchange and by following the selection process and directed the Municipality to regularize her services and send her for TSLC training and as the Municipality did not follow the said direction that there are lapses on their part and they cannot take away the right of the applicant to claim for the minimum scale and service benefits as she served for several years in the Municipality. Ultimately, the Tribunal held in the impugned order that her services are to be treated as deemed regularization from the date of her appointment and that she is entitled for regular pay scales from date of her appointment till the date of her retirement and ordered for release of her pensionary benefits in accordance with rules and to pay the arrears of revised pay scales and pensionary benefits to her.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal in declaring that her services are deemed to have been regularized and directing the Municipality to pay her all the service benefits from date of initial appointment till the date of retirement, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Municipality.
9. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner appearing for the Municipality is that her initial appointment itself is not valid as she was not appointed as per rules and as such she is not entitled for regularization of her services and that she is also not entitled for pay scales and pensionary benefits.
10. We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the said contention is devoid of any merit. It is significant to note that when the applicant has earlier filed O.A.No.4945 of 1999 before the Tribunal seeking regularization of her services and for payment of minimum pay scale, the Tribunal, by way of interim order dated 02.08.2004, directed the Municipality that the applicant 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.7631 of 2012 services are to be regularized taking into consideration the services rendered by her for many years and to send her for TSLC training in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 01.04.1999, if necessary by conducting a special course. Considering the said direction issued, it is held by the Tribunal in the impugned order that the said direction has not been complied with by the Municipality till the retirement of the applicant on attaining her age of superannuation and held that there is a lapse on the part of the Municipality in not implementing the directions given by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4945 of 1999 as per order dated 02.08.2004 for regularizing the services of the applicant for TSLC training. As per submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the said O.A.No.4945 of 1999 was finally disposed of on 02.08.2004 with the similar direction. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Municipality. Therefore, when it is already held by the Tribunal in the O.A.No.4945 of 1999 that the applicant has been appointed as per rules after her name was sponsored by the employment exchange and after following the selection process, which order of the Tribunal was not challenged further by the Municipality by way of filing any writ petition and when the order of the Tribunal became final, it is not open to the writ petitioner-Municipality now to contend before this Court that as the initial appointment of the applicant is not made on regular basis and it is irregular that she is not entitled to regularization of her services and for payment of pensionary benefits. The said issue was already answered by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4945 of 1999 and it attained finality. Therefore, the said contention of the Municipality holds no water and it cannot be countenanced.
11. As the Tribunal has already held that the appointment of the applicant is made as per rules after her name was sponsored by the employment exchange and after following the selection process and as the Tribunal directed the Municipality to regularize her services for sending her to TSLC training and as the Municipality did not comply with the said direction of the Tribunal and as there are clear laches and lapses on the part of the 7 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.7631 of 2012 Municipality in implementing the said orders of the Tribunal, which became final, in our considered view, the Tribunal in the impugned order rightly held that the services of the applicant are deemed to be regularized from date of her appointment till the date of her retirement and that she is entitled to revised pay scales and pensionary benefits. The services rendered by her for a long period of time without any break cannot be ignored. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal, in our considered view, is perfectly sustainable under law and it does not suffer from any legal flaw or infirmity, warranting our interference in this writ petition. No valid legal ground is made out by the writ petitioner, which warrants interference in this writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
12. In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed affirming the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 18.12.2025 MDP