Telangana High Court
The Special Chief Secretary, Rep Its ... vs Sri S.K. Srinath, on 4 August, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1 AKS,J & GAC,J
W.P.No.23592_2006
Dt.04.08.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.No.23592 OF 2006
ORDER (per AKS,J):
This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.5596 of 2005, dated 14.03.2006 as being illegal, unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services II, appearing for the petitioners and Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the respondent was working as Deputy Executive Engineer and while he was working at Eluru he was transferred on 05.03.2005, without any posting orders. Challenging the said transfer orders, the respondent has filed O.A.No.5596 of 2005 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has granted 2 AKS,J & GAC,J W.P.No.23592_2006 Dt.04.08.2022 status quo order in the said case and because of status quo orders, the respondent could not join on the date of transfer and final posting orders were given in the month of September, 2003. The respondent has filed another O.A.No.5205 of 2005 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide orders dated 14.03.2006 has directed to treat the period from 05.03.2005 till the date of reporting to duty i.e., September, 2005 shall be treated as compulsory wait and the applicant shall be paid all the pay and allowances according to the rules. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that admittedly, the respondent has not worked from March, 2005 to September, 2005 and the Tribunal allowed the O.A and directed to treat the said period as compulsory wait. Therefore, appropriate orders may be passed by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5596 of 2005, dated 14.03.2006.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has disposed of both the O.As filed by the 3 AKS,J & GAC,J W.P.No.23592_2006 Dt.04.08.2022 respondent by way of a common order i.e., O.A.No.5205 of 2005 and O.A.No.5596 of 2005, dated 14.03.2006 and the Tribunal has vacated interim orders and directed the respondent to report to duties within one week and the gap period for reporting to the duty is treated as compulsory wait. As the Tribunal has granted status quo order in O.A.No.5596 of 2005. Therefore, there are no merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for both the parties is of the considered view that the respondent could not join in the new posting because of the status quo orders granted by the Tribunal. A person, who is pursuing legal remedies when the Tribunal has granted status quo orders, cannot be blamed as not joining the duty. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to treat the period from March, 2005 to September, 2005 as compulsory wait. Therefore, this Court feels it is not necessary to interfere with the orders of the Tribunals. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 4 AKS,J & GAC,J W.P.No.23592_2006 Dt.04.08.2022
7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ____________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 04.08.2022.
Krl