Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kota Atchaiah vs The State Of Ap on 3 February, 2025
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
+ WRIT PETITION NO: 8292/2024
% 03.02.2025
# Kota Atchaiah.
......Petitioner
And:
$1. The State of Andhra Pradesh & 3 others
....Respondents.
!Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Sodum Anvesha
^Counsel for the respondents : Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali,
learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Services - I
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. AIR 2022 SC 2829
2. (2024) 5 SCC 264
3. (1989) 4 SCC 582
4. (2021) 14 SCC 472
5. (2008) 8 SCC 648
6. W.P.No.14253 of 2024 decided on 18.07.2024
7. (2012) 1 SCC 273
8. (2014) 8 SCC 470
2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION NO: 8292/2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03.02.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No
copy of the Judgment?
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
_______________________
CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 8292/2024
ORDER:(per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 12.03.2013 in OA.No.5138 of 2010 (in short 'OA') passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short 'Tribunal').
3. The OA was filed being aggrieved from the action of the respondent No.4 therein i.e., respondent No.1 herein, in not passing final orders in pursuance of the request of respondent No.3 in OA vide proceedings Rx.No.504/Trg.3/2005, dated Nil.08.2008 on the representation of the petitioner for his reinstatement into service as APSP Constable, and for direction to the State and its authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.
4. The petitioner was selected as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (in short 'SCTPC') in Andhra Pradesh Special Police (in short 'APSP') Battalion. During the period of his training, he was unauthorisedly 4 absent, without leave, with effect from 26.01.2005. He was discharged from training on 06.03.2005. Later on, he was reinstated into service on 16.01.2006, but with the condition that he will be discharged if any adverse report was received against him during the verification of character and antecedents pending receipt of verification report from S.P., Guntur. Subsequently, on receipt of the verification report with respect to pending criminal case in Cr.No.52 of 2005 under Section 324 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, in which he was arrested; sent for remand and charge sheet filed in C.C.No.378 of 2005, he was again discharged on 06.03.2006, from training, facing criminal trial. He was acquitted in criminal case, before Lokadalat vide order/award dated 18.02.2006. His representation for reinstatement remained pending. So, the OA was filed for the relief, mentioned above.
5. Pursuant to the interim order passed in OA, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner but rejected the same vide memo dated 10.09.2010.
6. The OA was finally allowed on 12.09.2013 by setting aside the rejection order vide Memo No.32546/Ser.III/A1/2008, dated 10.09.2010. The respondents were also directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. The operative part reads as under in para No.6:
"6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, O.A., is allowed and the rejection order vide Memo No.32546/Ser.III/A1/2008, dated 10.09.2010 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits. No costs."
7. The order of the Tribunal was not implemented.
5
8. The State respondents filed W.P.No.12506 of 2022 challenging the order of the Tribunal, belatedly with laches of 3378 days along with I.A.No.2 of 2023 which were dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 06.11.2023. The relevant part of judgment in para Nos.4 & 5 reads as under:
"4. The Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and therefore to condone the delay and laches in approaching for the relief that would not enable or vest the right on the petitioners to seek parity, as the petitioners are not an individual but a State and is armed with a complete power to act and was required to act with utmost integrity.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the I.A.No.2 of 2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
9. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition for implementation of the order of the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for implementation of the order of the Tribunal and particularly in view of dismissal of the writ petition filed by the State.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance in the case of Pawan Kumar v. Union of India1 and Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 to submit that even in the cases of discharge during the training period, the Hon'ble Apex Court, issued the directions to pay the consequential benefits in terms of salary etc., as notional and submits that directions may be issued in terms of the directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to above with respect to the consequential benefits to the petitioner. 1 AIR 2022 SC 2829 2 (2024) 5 SCC 264 6
12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petition suffers from laches. He submits that the petition has been filed in the year 2024 for implementation of the order of the Tribunal passed in the year 2013. He places reliance in S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh 3 and Prahlad Raut v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences4.
13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 13.10.1999 i.e., the Andhra Pradesh (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, the selection of the petitioner as SCTPC was only provisional. He had to complete the training and only after completing the training successfully, appointment could be given. The SCTPC have to appear in the examination and in supplementary examination if occasion arises, and if he is not able to complete that examination, the unsuccessful candidates of supplementary examination shall be discharged from training. They shall not be offered any appointment in the Department. Every SCTPC shall be eligible, during the period of institutional training, both for regular or extended period, if any, only for stipend as fixed by the Government from time to time. As the petitioner has not completed training, the question of the salary etc., does not raise, nor of any part thereof.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the petition does not suffer from laches. The petitioner was pursuing the authorities for implementation of the order. Thereafter, the respondents filed W.P.No.12506 3 (1989) 4 SCC 582 4 (2021) 14 SCC 472 7 of 2022 which suffered from laches and was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.11.2023. Consequently, filing of the present petition after dismissal of the petition of the respondent-State in the year 2024, does not suffer from laches. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is for the respondents to implement the order but they have not implemented without any cause and also without explaining the laches on their part.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to undergo the requisite training as under the Rules 1999.
16. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.
17. We shall first consider the argument of laches in filing the writ petition for implementation of the order of the Tribunal.
18. Learned Assistant Government Pleader places reliance in S.S.Rathore (supra) to submit that the limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub-Section (3). Article 58 of the Limitation Act is not invocable in view of the special limitation. He submits that a memorial or representation to the head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation.
19. Learned Assistant Government Pleader also places reliance in Prahlad Raut (supra) which is on the same point, referring to S.S.Rathore (supra). 8
20. In Prahlad Raut (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to Union of India v. Tarseem Singh5, in which the law was laid down on limitation, in the context of discretionary relief in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India for which there is no limitation prescribed. Para-28 in Prahlad Raut (supra) is reproduced as under:
"28. The proposition of law laid down by this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) is unexceptionable. It is well settled that where there is a continuing wrong in relation to a service related claim, relief may be granted notwithstanding delay, provided the granting of the relief does not unsettle matters settled and affect third parties. The judgment was, however, rendered in the context of discretionary relief in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for which there is no limitation prescribed. Where the cause of action is not a continuing one the High Courts refuse monetary claim on the ground of delay, specially arrears. In this context it would be pertinent to refer to the concluding part of Paragraph (7) and Paragraph (8) of the judgment of this Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) extracted hereinbelow:
"7. ..........Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
21. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, there is no dispute on the legal position. The submission of the memorial and representation and repeated representation shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of 5 (2008) 8 SCC 648 9 fixing the limitation. But, the said principle cannot be applied in the present case. Firstly, the order of OA is not under challenge in the present petition. So, the question of OA being within limitation or not does not arise, secondly, the writ petition filed by the State against the order of Tribunal having being dismissed, it is now not open to the state to agitate neither the question of limitation for filing OA nor on the merits of the Tribunals' order and thirdly, the question is about the implementation of the order of the Tribunal by issuing direction to the respondents in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. There is no period of limitation for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though, the person has to approach within the reasonable time, what is a reasonable time, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The writ petition No.12506 of 2023 challenging the order of the Tribunal filed by State was dismissed on 06.11.2023. So, the present petition filed thereafter in the year 2024, in our view being within 3 years, thereafter, is within the reasonable time.
22. Now coming to the point of direction for implementation of the order of the Tribunal, the facts are not in dispute. The writ petition filed by the State challenging the order of the Tribunal has already been dismissed on 06.11.2023. The order of the Tribunal has attained finality. So, the respondents cannot deny the implementation of the order of the Tribunal. 10
23. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.Madhusudana Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh 6 has held that the compliance of the Court's orders and directions is imperative, else, it would have the tendency of shaking the confidence of public in the administration of justice. Long inaction towards compliance of the Court's orders and directions, tantamount to, obstruct the course of justice in as much as the compliance of the Court's order has to be viewed as an integral part of dispensation of justice and administration of justice. S.Madhusudana Raju (supra) also referred to Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India 7and Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India 8.
24. In Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under:
"26. It is also of some relevancy to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result. Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the Judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad's case [(2006) 5 SCC 1]. The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at large or public spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority 6 WP.No.14253 of 2024 decided on 18.07.2024 7 (2012) 1 SCC 273 8 (2014) 8 SCC 470 11
27. It is where the State and its instrumentalities have failed to discharge its statutory functions or have acted adversely to the larger public interest that the courts are called upon to interfere in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction, to ensure maintenance of the rule of law. These are the cases which have impact in rem or on larger section of the society and not in personam simplicitor. Courts are called upon to exercise jurisdiction with twin objects in mind. Firstly, to punish the persons who have disobeyed or not carried out orders of the court i.e. for their past conduct. Secondly, to pass such orders, including imprisonment and use the contempt jurisdiction as a tool for compliance of its orders in future. This principle has been applied in the United States and Australia as well."
25. In Subrata Roy Sahara (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held as under:
"17. There is no escape from, acceptance, or obedience, or compliance with an order passed by the Supreme Court, which is the final and the highest Court in the country. Where would we find ourselves, if Parliament or a State Legislature insists, that a statutory provision struck down as unconstitutional, is valid? Or, if a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction is not accepted for compliance, by either the Government of India, and/or one or the other State Government(s) concerned? What if, the Government or instrumentality concerned, chooses not to give effect to a Court order, declaring the fundamental right of a citizen? Or, a determination rendered by a Court to give effect to a legal right, is not acceptable for compliance? Where would we be, if decisions on private disputes rendered between private individuals, are not complied with? The answer though preposterous, is not far-fetched. In view of the functional position of the Supreme Court depicted above, non-compliance with its orders would dislodge the cornerstone maintaining the equilibrium and equanimity in the country's governance. There would be a breakdown of constitutional functioning. It would be a mayhem of sorts."
26. Considering the aforesaid judgments and the principles of law laid down, the exercise of jurisdiction being under Article 226 of Constitution of India; the dismissal of the writ petition of the State on 06.11.2023, and the 12 non-implementation of the order of the Tribunal even thereafter, the petitioner has a continuing cause of action for implementation of the Tribunal's order, and in directing implementation, any third parties shall not be adversely affected.
27. Now the only question is, what are the consequential benefits in terms of the order of the Tribunal, to which, the petitioner is entitled.
28. The petitioner did not work after his discharge from service in 2006, at the stage of training. He could not complete the training as mandated under the Rules, 1999. Admittedly, during some period, the petitioner was employed elsewhere, in some private work. Though previously we passed an order on 23.07.2024, to be reproduced shortly, but considering the submissions advanced, at this final stage, we are of the view that such employment i.e., private work should not come in the way of implementation of the order of the Tribunal, as, when the respondents were not implementing the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner had to have some alternative employment for his livelihood and of his family.
29. On 23.07.2024, this Court pass the following order:
"The petitioner challenged the discharge memo dated 06.03.2006 by which the petitioner was discharged from service immediately after completing all the formalities, due to non disclosure of involvement in criminal case at the time of verification of his character and antecedents, in OA.No.5138 of 2010 which was allowed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by an order dated 12.09.2013 with the following directions:
"6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, O.A., is allowed and the rejection order vide Memo.No.32546/Ser.III/A1/2008, dated 10.09.2010 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service with all consequential benefits. No costs."
2. The OA was decided after contest from the State and its authorities. 13
3. The petitioner submitted the copy of the order to the authorities on which the respondent No.2 issued RC.No.842/F1/2010 dated 18.10.2013, however, the order was not implemented. The petitioner again served representation/letter in the year 2019, upon which the matter was referred, for necessary instructions, to the Government by the respondent No.2. The State decided to challenge the order of the Tribunal.
4. W.P.No.12506 of 2022 was filed with laches of 3378 days and for condonation of those laches I.A.No.2 of 2023 was filed. The said application was rejected and consequently the writ petition was also dismissed by the Co- ordinate bench by order dated 06.11.2023. Inspite thereof, the order of the Tribunal was not implemented.
5. The present writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Tribunal.
6. By order dated 04.04.2024, the matter was posted for next date to report compliance.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Services submits that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 12.09.2013 and writ petitioner is approaching for its implementation in 2019.
8. What we find is that the order of the Tribunal is for reinstatement with consequential benefits. Admittedly, the petitioner did not work after his discharge memo/order in 2006. The petitioner also did not approach for implementation of the Tribunal's judgment during these years and except for filing the representation in the year 2019. There is nothing on record to indicate the efforts made by the petitioner to get the order implemented. True, that the writ petition by State was finally dismissed on 06.11.2023, but for implementation of the Tribunal orders which is also for consequential benefit, before deciding the present writ petition, we call upon the petitioner, to file the affidavit if the petitioner's stand on the relief of consequential benefit as also if the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere, during the aforesaid period.
9. Let the affidavit be filed within one week.
10. Post on 30.07.2024."
30. Pursuant to the order dated 23.07.2024, the petitioner has filed affidavit to the effect that he is ready to forego 50% of the financial benefits i.e., salary etc., including increments, leave benefits during non duty period only. However, submitting further that, all the remaining benefits including the fixation of pay scales and service protection for seniority and pensionary benefits, etc., have to be extended to the petitioner at par his batchmates. 14
31. The respondent No.4 has also filed affidavit in response, contending that the consequential benefit as is being claimed does not arise contrary to the Andhra Pradesh (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999.
32. We shall consider the Rules 4, 5 & 8 of the Rules 1999 which are being reproduced as under:
"4. Training & Training Period:
(a) The Candidates selected by the Level Police Recruitment Board or by any Competent Authority on the basis of vacancies reserved for direct selection in each local Cadre of the Post, shall be first sent for induction training to any of the Police Training Institutes or centres as to be decided by the Director General and Inspector General of Police for the purpose and they shall also be required to undergo any other training as may be prescribed thereafter from time to time.
(b) The training period for various categories of selected candidates will be as shown below:
(i) .......
(ii) ........
(iii) .......
(iv) Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constables under all categories shall undergo training for a period of 9 months at training institutions/centres as notified by the Director General of Police. They should undergo all indoor and outdoor training without any break and show satisfactory progress/performance during the training period
(v) ..............
(vi) ..............
(vii) ..............
(viii) ..............
(ix) ..............
(x) ..............
(xi) ..............
15
(xii) ..............
(xiii) ..............
5. Test and Evaluation:
The trainees in all the categories shall have to appear for the tests during training or on completion of training both indoor and outdoor subjects. The trainees are required to pass all the subjects on completion of Institutional training as per the scheme of examination. Those who fail in one or more subjects shall be retained in the training institutions and they shall be required to appear in the supplementary examination within a period of (2) two months from the date of completion of final examination. The Un-successful candidates of supplementary examination shall be discharged from the training and they shall not be offered any appointment in the Department. The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board shall prescribe required test for all the above categories from time to time and decide the scheme of examination.
6. ...............
7. ...............
8. Stipend and Allowance:
(1) Every person selected as Stipendiary Trainee Cadet shall be eligible during the period of Institutional training, both for Regular or extended period if any for stipend as fixed by the Government from time to time.
The trainees shall not be entitled for any other allowances of special pays etc. No stipend would be paid for any period of absence due to leave, un- authorised absence etc. and a proportionate amount shall be deducted from, stipend calculating a month as thirty days. The Authorised Medical rest as inpatient in Government Hospital or in the training institutions shall not result in deduction in stipend. However the trainees will not be authorised for stipend for the period of term break.
(2) The period of institutional training or the extended period of training for which they are retained at the training institution for additional training or test for not passing the prescribed tests or examination or any other reason shall not be counted as on duty for the purposes like Probation, qualifying service, leave, seniority and increments etc. (3) Contributions: Trainees shall contribute to the funds for common good and welfare etc., which has to be decided by the Director General and Inspector General of Police from time to time."
16
33. A perusal of Rule 4(a) shows that the candidates selected shall be first sent for induction training to any of the Police Training Institutes or centres as to be decided by the Director General and Inspector General of Police for the purpose. Clause (b)(iv) provides that the Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constables under all categories shall undergo training for a specified period at training institutions/centres. They should undergo all indoor and outdoor training without any break and show satisfactory progress/performance during the training period. Rule 5, specifically provides that, the trainees in all categories shall have to appear for the tests during training or on completion of training both indoor and outdoor subjects. The trainees are required to pass all the subjects on completion of Institutional training as per the scheme of examination. Those who fail in one or more subjects shall be retained in the training institutions and they shall be required to appear in the supplementary examination within a period of (2) two months from the date of completion of final examination. The Un-successful candidates of supplementary examination shall be discharged from the training and they shall not be offered any appointment in the Department. So, Rule 5 makes it clear that, it is only on successful completion of the training and passing of examination that the appointment is to be offered in the department and as per Rule 8, every person selected as Stipendiary Trainee Cadet shall be eligible during the period of Institutional training, both for Regular or extended period if any, for stipend as fixed by the Government from time to time. Rule 8(1) provides that the trainees shall not be entitled for any other allowances or special pays etc. 17
34. In Pawan Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court directed as under in para No.19:
"19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November, 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice No.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc...."
35. In Ravindra Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Court directed as under in para 35:
"35. For the reasons set out hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench dated 29.10.2010 in Special Appeal No.896 of 2005 are set aside. The order of 12.04.2005 of the third respondent, Commandant 27th Battalion, PAC, Sitapur is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable for which he was selected, pursuant to his participation in reference to the Recruitment Notification dated 20.01.2004. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force. At the same time, we direct that the appellant will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs."18
36. Learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in Ravindra Kumar (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra), the present Rules 1999, were not under consideration.
37. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal dated 12.03.2013, sought to be implemented shows that, the Tribunal granted reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. The re-instatement, in our view pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal, would be at the stage of training, from which stage the petitioner was discharged. The direction of the Tribunal has to be read inconsonance with the Rules, 1999 and not contrary to it. So, the consequential benefits awarded by the Tribunal on reinstatement shall be only as per the Rules, 1999. Consequently, we are of the view that the petitioner's reinstatement would be for training and subject to the passing of the training in the test as per the Rules, 1999, he would be entitled for future benefits. During training he would be entitled for the benefits, which the trainee is entitled under the Rules, 1999. The direction of the Tribunal "with all consequential benefits" cannot be read contrary to the Rules, 1999. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to forego 50% of pay etc., towards consequential benefits and the rest to be awarded, is of no relevance, as under the Rules, 1999, the trainee is entitled only for the payment of stipend. The petitioner has not completed the training. Without completion of training and without being successful in the test, the appointment could not be given. So, the question of payment of salary or part thereof on foregoing some part, does not arise. In Pawan Kumar (supra) and 19 Ravindra Kumar (supra) also, arrears of salary was not granted and all the benefits including pay etc., which were granted, were only notional.
38. Thus considered, we allow this writ petition partly, in the following terms:
i) the petitioner shall be reinstated and he shall undergo training in terms of the Andhra Pradesh (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999.
ii) the petitioner shall be sent for training in the next batch of training.
iii) during the period of training the petitioner would be paid stipend as per the Rules, 1999.
iv) on successful completion of training in the test to be conducted, he shall be given appointment as per the Rules 1999,
v) The petitioner will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force,
vi) The petitioner will be entitled for the notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits.
vii) The direction as in (vi) supra shall be consequent upon direction (iv) supra coming into force.
viii) Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
39. We expect fairness on the part of the respondent authorities towards the petitioner in the matter of imparting training and conducting test. 20
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J Dated:03.02.2025 Note: L.R. copy be marked B/o.
AG 21 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8292/2024 Dated:03.02.2025 Note: L.R. copy be marked B/o.
AG