Telangana High Court
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Amjada Begum on 12 October, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Petition No.7062 of 2012
ORDER :(Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to and connected with O.A.No.12255 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity the Tribunal) and to quash or set aside the order dated 20.09.2011 in O.A.No.12255 of 2009 by holding as erroneous and contrary to the law.
2. Heard Government Pleader counsel for Services-I for the petitioners; and Sri Poodattu Amarendar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 1st respondent was working as School Assistant, and later she was promoted and posted to Government Boys High School, Sangareddy; after issuing promotion orders, the petitioners have issued ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wp_ 7062_2012 modified orders in respect of 1st respondent, Smt. Amjada Begum and she was posted at Government Boys High School, Sangareddy; aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No.25291 of 1998 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 09.09.1998, was pleased to suspend the orders of the District Education Officer; thereafter, the 1st respondent was relieved from the duties even before the orders of this Court; the 1st respondent requested the petitioners to restore her in to the original post at Sangareddy; petitioners have also filed WPMP No.30664 of 1998 seeking to vacate the interim orders passed in W.P.No.25291 of 1998; this Court vide order 30.10.1988 disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to retain the 1st respondent at the same place while giving liberty to the petitioners to approach Tribunal.
4. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has filed O.A.No.5984 of 1999 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. preferred by ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wp_ 7062_2012 the 1st respondent vide Award dated 19.11.1999; aggrieved by the same 1st respondent filed W.P.No.25616 of 1999 and this Court was pleased to grant stay of the orders on 17.12.1999. Thereafter, petitioners have filed vacate stay petition and finally the writ petition was closed on 04.08.2000 directing the petitioners to take a decision to treat the period of absence of 1st respondent from 21.08.1998 and 17.12.1999 in accordance with rules and the petitioners have treated the said period as extra ordinary period; however, the period from 21.08.1998 to 17.12.1999 was not regularised. In those set of circumstances respondents has filed O.A.No.3340 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide orders dated 09.07.2003 directed the petitioners to consider the claim of respondent for regularisation of the absence period from September 1998 to June 2000; aggrieved by the said orders of the Tribunal, the petitioners filed writ petition no. 6852 of 2004 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition vide orders dated 10.03.2005 directing the petitioners to ::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J wp_ 7062_2012 take a decision with regard to the period of the absence from 21.08.1998 to 17.12.1999 in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners have passed order on 21.04.2009 treating the absence period as extra ordinary period; aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.12255 of 2009 before the Tribunal; the Tribunal, vide order dated 20.09.2011, was pleased to direct the petitioners to treat the absence period from 21.08.1998 to 17.12.1999 as compulsory wait; and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.12255 of 2009 dated 20.09.2011 in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the absence period of 1st respondent from 21.08.1998 to 17.12.2009 is on account of illegal action of the petitioners, wherein the initial posting on promotion of the respondent was ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wp_ 7062_2012 modified in order to accommodate another teacher and the 1st respondent was pursuing her remedies by filing O.A. when the said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal, the respondent filed writ petition and this Court was pleased to stay the relieving order of the 1st respondent; therefore, the Tribunal was justified in treating absence period as "compulsory wait" and therefore, there are no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that, the Tribunal has merely directed the absence period of the respondent from 21.08.1998 to 17.12.1999 as compulsory wait, only for the purpose of seniority and pension; the Tribunal has not granted any wages during that absence period; therefore, the Tribunal was justified in giving directions in favour of the respondents. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1225 of 2009, dated 20.09.2011.
::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wp_ 7062_2012
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 12.10.2022 AQS/KNR