Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 125 (TS)

J. Hanmanthu v. State of Telangana

2025-03-17

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri Sriram Polali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction : Declaring the Proceedings bearing Rc. No. G/1412/2020 dated 02.12.2020. issued by the 5 th Respondent and Proceedings bearing Rc.No.A/144/2017, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the 4 th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of the principles of natural justice, in violation of the provisions of the Telangana Village Revenue Assistant Service Rules 2005 and in violation of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same; Declaring the Proceedings bearing A7/4273/2009 dated 23.03.2018 issued by Respondent No. 3 directing the termination of the service of the Petitioners and limiting the arrears of salaries payable to them only upto 30.04.2012, even when a policy decision on the issue of ratification/regularization of their appointment is pending before Respondents No.1 and 2 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same; Declaring the inaction on the part of Respondents No. 1 and 2 in failing to take a decision on the issue of ratification/ regularization of the appointment of the Petitioners as Village Revenue Assistants right from the year 2010 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in abdication of their duty and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to take a decision on the said issue forthwith; and Consequently, to permit the Petitioners to continue working in the post of Village Revenue Assistant with all consequential benefits till the above issue is resolved by Respondents No.1 and 2 and also to direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary/honorarium from 30.4.2012 till date and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It is specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Village Revenue Assistants by Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. It is specific case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Village Revenue Assistants by Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. In the year 2010, Respondent no 3 abruptly terminated the services of some VRAs on the ground that all the appointments made to the post of VRA after 2002 were without the prior sanction of the government. Later, the village servants association made a representation to the Respondent No. 1 seeking ratification of the appointments of VRAs. Respondent no. 1 forwarded the said representation to respondent 2 & 3 to make detailed report on the subject matter. Respondent no. 3 made a detailed report and submitted to the respondent by recommending the respondent no. 1 to ratify the appointment of VRAs and also to pay the honorarium salary for their services. VRAs approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal filing O.A.No.9350 of 2011, O.A.No.9351 of 2011 and O.A.No.9391 of 2011, seeking a declaration that their appointment is regular and a direction not to terminate their service and pay salary. The hon’ble APAT passed an interim order in the above said applications directing the respondents to continue the applicants therein as VRAs and pay salaries to them until further orders, subsequently on 02.01.2012 APAT made the interim orders absolute but the same was suspended by this court through a writ petition W.P.No.8702 of 2014 preferred by the Respondent No 3. Thereafter, Hon’ble APAT disposed the O.A.No.9391 of 2011 stating that the issue of legality of the appointments and continuation of services of the applicants was to be determined by the authorities as per rules. To comply with the orders of APAT in O.A.No.9391 of 2011, respondent no. 3 ordered the respondent nos. 4&5 to submit the working days served by the VRAs for the purpose of paying the salary to the VRAs. Following the order the respondent no 4&5 submitted a report to respondent no 3 saying that the service of the VRAs under their jurisdiction were deemed to be terminated from 31.01.2012. The specific grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 1 is not taking any policy decision with regard to the ratification of appointment of VRAs and respondent no 4&5 wrongly submitted that the services of the VRAs were deemed to be terminated from 31.01.2012. Hence, the petitioners approached this court through the present writ petition. 3. The specific grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent no. 1 is not taking any policy decision with regard to the ratification of appointment of VRAs and respondent no 4&5 wrongly submitted that the services of the VRAs were deemed to be terminated from 31.01.2012. Hence, the petitioners approached this court through the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 23.03.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 terminating the service of the petitioners and few others had been challenged by few others vide W.P.Nos.31901 of 2018 and 30975 of 2023 and this Court, vide its orders dated 03.10.2023 and22.01.2025, allowed the said writ petitions. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed on record the order of this Court dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.31901 of 2018 and the relevant paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of the said order are hereunder: “ 12. The material documents filed along with the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 clearly indicates that the petitioners had been paid honorarium for the working period from 31.01.2009 to 30.04.2012 and thereafter payment of honorarium had been stopped. But however, they are doing service voluntarily in assisting the VRO concerned without honorarium. These details find place in proceedings No.A/335/2018 dated 20.11.2018 of Tahsildar, Narayanapet, addressed to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar in respect of five VRAs. This Court opines that the 1st respondent though called for detailed reports from the Tahsildars concerned vide proceedings dated 19.01.2017 vide No.A7/4273/2009 did not examine the same in detail and however passed orders impugned dated 23.03.2018 vide No.A7/4273/2009 stating that the proposals received from the Tahsildars concerned in Mahabubnagar District had been examined, further observed that the services of the petitioners are deemed to be terminated after 30.04.2012 without assigning any reasons, without giving notice to the petitioners, without any discussion on the subject issue, clearly holding that the petitioners had been terminated after 30.04.2012 vide impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2018 which is admittedly retrospective in operation. This Court opines that the 1 st respondent has no pow er to pass the impugned order making it retrospectively operative. 13. This Court opines that the 1 st respondent has no pow er to pass the impugned order making it retrospectively operative. 13. The Apex Court in the Judgment dated 03.03.2014 reported in (2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases, 106 in “ STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ANOTEHR v. RAM NI WAS BANSAL (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES” very clearly observed that the dismissal order cannot be made retrospectively operative. 14. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The impugned order dated 23.03.2018 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners also placed on record the order of this Court dated 22.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.30975 of 2023 and the relevant paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 are extracted hereunder: “ 4) When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lis raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P. No.31901 of 2018. Learned counsel has further submitted that since VRA System is abolished, suitable direction may be given to the respondents to take appropriate decision on the re-engagement of the petitioners. 5) The above made submission is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6) I n view of the above and for the reasons alike in the order dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P. No.31901 of 2018, the impugned proceedings bearing No.A7/ 4273/ 2009, dated 23.03.2018, issued by respondent No.3 is set aside, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, and respondent No.1 is directed to take appropriate decision on the re-engagement of the petitioners, in accordance with law , as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order” 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.31901 of 2018, which had been implemented in respect of the petitioners in W.P.No.31901 of 2018 and also the order of this Court dated 22.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.30975 of 2023. 7. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 8. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The Order of this Court dated 03.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.31901 of 2018 and, d) The Order of this Court dated 22.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.30975 of 2023, The present writ petition is allow ed. The impugned proceedings bearing No.A7/ 4273/ 2009 dated 23.03.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of the petitioners herein and the consequential proceedings bearing Rc.No.A/ 144/ 2017, dated 23.09.2020 issued by the respondent No.4 and also the proceedings bearing No. G/ 1412/ 2020 dated 02.12.2020 issued by the respondent No.5 are set aside. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are directed to consider and take appropriate decision pertaining to issuance of appropriate orders for ratification/ regularization of the petitioners appointments w.e.f. 2010 as Village Revenue Assistants and for payment of arrears of Salary/ Honororium from 30.04.2012 till date in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight (08) w eeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.