Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 549 (AP)

T. Ravi Kumar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-03-28

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not paying salary to the Petitioners since January 2019 though the Petitioners discharging their duties as Horticulture Officers as wholly illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional in the violation of Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize their service as Horticulture Officers with all consequential benefits and pass….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners have been working as Horticulture Officers in the office of the 3rd respondent since 28.05.2010 and that the Petitioners posses M.Sc. (Horticulture) Qualification and appointed on contract basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,000/- allowances per month. The Petitioners are working in the different Mandal's in Rampachodavaram Sub-Division in the Rubber Plantation Project. The duty of the Petitioners is to motivate the tribals towards plantation of Rubber in the tribal areas. It is stated that the Petitioners have to assist and advice the tribals for Rubber plantation. The Petitioners have been working since the year 2010 till date without any complaint and they continuing their services with a hope that their services with regularized by the respondents. The Petitioners are not being paid salary since the month of January 2019 till date but however they are serving as Horticulture Officers with a hope that the salaries will be paid by the respondents. It is stated the Petitioners had made representations dated 8.6.2020 and 11.9.2020 for payment of salaries to the respondents herein which is due since from the month of January 2019. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2 nd respondent dated 03.06.2020 wherein it is clearly stated that the Petitioners are working as Horticulture Officers for implementation of Rubber plantation Project in ITDA Rampachodavaram and the Salary/Honorarium is paid up to December 2018. It is further submitted the Petitioners are entitled for regularization of the service since there are working to a regular post. In fact the 3rd respondent has addressed a letter to the Managing Director A.P.S.T.C.F.C. Limited Vijayawada to consider their cases on regular bases. It is further submitted the Petitioners are entitled for regularization of the service since there are working to a regular post. In fact the 3rd respondent has addressed a letter to the Managing Director A.P.S.T.C.F.C. Limited Vijayawada to consider their cases on regular bases. It is further stated the 2nd respondent issued a Memo dated 12.12.2019 addressing the project of ITDA to furnish information regarding the Horticulture officers working in ITDA Rampachodavaram and Paderu. It is further stated that the Petitioners are unable to maintain their families and incurring debts since salaries are not been paid from January 2019. Even though the petitioners made several representations, the respondents have not taken any action so far. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. This Court vide order dated 26.04.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 has directed the respondents to pay the salaries to other petitioners, who are not paid salaries upto September 2020 within a period of two weeks from today 4. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the petitioners claiming that they are continuing as on date of filing of I.A.No. 1 of 2023 is not correct and that it is also false that they are in service. In fact, the petitioners are not attending to duties from October, 2020. The Certificates said to have been issued that tour dairies for the period they claim as worked upto March, 2021 is false and fabricated by the writ petitioners. It is stated that there are certain irregularities committed by the then Project Horticulture Officer in certifying the petitioner services without proper record of working and without even jurisdiction for which disciplinary action is already initiated against him. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that when the petitioners have not paid with honorarium due to lack of budget and they filed a representation on 9.11.2020 that their salaries are due for 8 months and on calling for information, the then Project Horticulture Officer issued 'Duty Certificates' to the writ petitioners for the period from January, 2019 to April, 2020 i.e., for total period of 16 months at once with single date i.e., 18.7.2020 without obtaining tour dairies from the writ petitioners for the respective months. It is stated that the said service details got verified by the concerned MPDOs who having verified with Attendance Registers reported that the petitioners have not signed in the Attendance. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per GO.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FWPC III) Dept. dated 22.04.1994 with regard to regularization of services, the services of such persons, who worked continuously for a minimum period of five years and are continuing on 25.11.1993 be regularized by the appointing authorities if satisfied the conditions therein, and the petitioners since never engaged during said period, and since seeking regularization in the posts of Agriculture Extension Officers which posts shall only be filled by way of deputation or by transfer and not by way of direct recruitment by the Horticulture Department, which is nothing to do with this Tribal Welfare Department, the petitioners seeking regularization of services does not arise yet all and also not maintainable under prevailing Govt. Orders.. It is stated that the petitioners claim for the honorarium due till their actual period of working and in view of closure of the project in which they were engaged and in view of lack of permission to meet the expenditure towards their honorarium from 4% administrative costs, the petitioner cannot be engaged. Therefore, there are no grounds in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3. While denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the Writ Petitioners were engaged on contract basis and they worked from 2010 to 2012 for implementation of Rubber Plantation Project in ITDA, Rampachodavaram. Subsequently after closure of Rubber project based on the oral representation made by the individuals, the then Project Officer considered to work in MGNREGS-Horticulture Programme to meet the expenditure from 4% Administrative cost. Accordingly the payment of honorarium was met from 4% administrative cost under MGNREGS and accordingly they were working in Horticulture and MGNREGS in the Mandals of ITDA, Rampachodavaram with a monthly honorarium. Out of 6 candidates/individuals, four petitioners worked upto 2018 and the remaining 2 individuals left the organization earlier. It is further stated that, a Memo was issued to Project Horticulture Officer vide this office Ltr. Ref. Out of 6 candidates/individuals, four petitioners worked upto 2018 and the remaining 2 individuals left the organization earlier. It is further stated that, a Memo was issued to Project Horticulture Officer vide this office Ltr. Ref. A6/367/ITDA/2010, dated: 28-09-2021 to submit report on actual attendance based on attendance register and other connected records were called for, to take further action. Further a letter was written to respective MPDOs to submit attendance certificates of the individuals if any to take further action. Accordingly, the Project Horticulture Officer, Rampachodavaram verified the attendance of the Horticulture Officers and Horticulture Technical Assistants with records available in ITDA and furnished the details of attendance in ITDA from 1 January 2019 to 30th September 2020 as mentioned in column no.4 of the below table: S.No. Name & Designation of the Individual Honorarium per month (Rs.) No. of Days attended in ITDA Amount of Honorarium to be paid (Rs.) 1 T. Ravi Kumar, HO, Addateegala 17,000/- 8 4387 2 K Suvarna Reddy, HTA, Addateegala 6500/- 1 210 3 N. Venkata Reddy, HTA, Devipatnam 6500/- 4 839 4 S Raja Reddy, HTA, Devipatnam 6500/- 6 1258 5 S. Nagamani, HO, Gangavaram 17000/- 9 4935 6 K. Satyanarayana Dora, HTA, Maredumilli 8350/- 10 2694 7 B. Bonju Babu, HO, Rajavommangi 17000/- 1 548 8 N. Subhash Dayamn, HO, YU Ramavaram 17000/- 6 3290 9 M. Sanyasi Reddy, HTA, Y.Ramavaram 6500/- 1 210 Total 46 18371 As per the report of the Project Horticulture Officer, Rampachodavaram and MPDOs, 9 individuals have attended for a period of 46 days as mentioned in the above table and an amount of Rs. 18371/- has to be paid to them. Accordingly proceedings were issued vide this office Ref. A6/367/ITDA/2010, Dated 09-10-2021 for payment of honorarium to them. Since, the payment of Honorarium paid for the working period of the individuals. It is further stated that, proposals were already submitted to the Managing Director, A.P.S.T.C.F.C. Ltd., A.P., Vijayawada vide this office File No. ITDA-R-Hort Hort/ 26/2016-JA(A6), dated March, 2018 to consider to post the Outsourcing employees in the regular vacancy of Agriculture Extension Officers /Horticulture Officers (or) accord permission to fill them in the existing vacancies and that the information has been called for vide Rc.No.SOW03-13021(37)/115/2018-A SEC, dated 12.12.2019 by the Director, Tribal Welfare and the following information was submitted vide this office Rc.No.A1/ITDA/2020, dated 29.05.2020 regarding the Horticulture Officers working in ITDA, Rampachodavaram. Sl.No. Item No. Information furnished 1 How many Agriculture Extension Officers Posts are sanctioned in all ITDA’s with their respective G.Os. 10 Agriculture Extension officers (AEOs) were sanctioned as per G.O.Ms.No.333 Finance (SMPC-1) Dept. 11.11.2010 II Reasons for not filling any AEO Posts in ITDA, R.C. Varam since 9 years Agriculture Extension Officers posts have to be filled by transfer on deputation from Agriculture Department. In this regard, letters have been addressed to the Commissioner of Agriculture, Guntur & the Director of Tribunal Welfare, A.P Vijayawada to fill up the posts. At present no individual is working/assigned in any task from ITDA. Further, the above individuals were taken on Outsourcing basis after 2010. At the same time AEO posts sanctioned, vide G.O.Ms.No.333, for which posts they are asking to absorb, are to be filled by transfer on deputation from Agriculture Department and moreover the petitioners are seeking regularization of their service as Horticulture Officers, the said post is a regular post which are sanctioned in terms of G.O.Ms.No.333 Finance (SPMC-1) Dept., Dated: 11.11.2010 and the same will be filled by way of transfer or on deputation. It is to state that, as per the report of the Project Horticulture Officer, Rampachodavaram and MPDOs, 9 individuals have attended for a period of 46 days as mentioned in the above table and an amount of Rs.18371/- has to be paid to them. Accordingly proceedings were issued vide this office Ref. A6/367/ITDA/2010, dated 9.10.2021 for payment of honorarium to them. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard Sri E. Venkata Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 8. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has also while denying the contents made by the petitioners, opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. Perused the material on record. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners that the petitioners have been working as Horticulture Officers in the office of the 3 rd respondent since 28.5.2010. The duty of the petitioners is to motivate the tribals towards plantation of Rubber in the tribal areas. 9. Perused the material on record. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners that the petitioners have been working as Horticulture Officers in the office of the 3 rd respondent since 28.5.2010. The duty of the petitioners is to motivate the tribals towards plantation of Rubber in the tribal areas. It is the further contention that the petitioners have been working since the year 2010 till date without any complaint and are continuing their services with a hope that their services were regularized by the respondents. 11. This Court observed that, the 3 rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2 nd respondent dated 3.6.2020 wherein it clearly stated that the petitioners are working as Horticulture Officers for implementation of Rubber plantation Project in ITDA Rampachodavarm and the Salary/Honorarium is paid upto December 2018. 12. Moreover, it is the contention of the respondents that, as per the report/explanation submitted by the then 4 th respondent, it reveals that the petitioners were worked upto September 2020 and later, they did not attend this office and the due salaries to all the 4 petitioners were paid up to September 2020 for which the Duty certificates & Service Certificates are produced to an extent of Rs.10,08,868/- by crediting the same to their individual accounts in two spells vide 3 rd respondent’s proceedings Rc.No.A6/ITDA/367/2010, dated 23.2.2023 & 3.3.2023 and no balance period is there to be paid, as they did not attend the office later. 13. On a perusal of the proceeding sheet, it is observed that, on 07.02.2023, during the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II placed a copy of proceedings in Rc.No.A6/ITDA/367/2010, dated 06.02.2023 issued by the Project Officer, ITDA, Rampachodavaram & Additional District Magistrate, ASR District, wherein it was mentioned that the then Project Horticulture Officer, Rampachodavaram issued Duty Certificates to the writ petitioners for the period they attended duties during the period from January 2019 to September 2020 and direction was given to release an amount of Rs.10,08,868/- to the writ petitioners by meeting the expenditure from PD-OGIA Account. 14. 14. Further it is observed that, in I.A. No.1 of 2023 in WP No.4363 of 2021, which was filed by the petitioners seeking to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to discharge duties and pay salary as it is and continuous to pay the same till disposal of main writ petition and this Court vide order dated 26.04.2023 has passed the following order: I.A No.1 of 2023 The present Writ Petition is filed for non-payment of salaries from January 2019 to September 2020. Initially a counter was filed stating that the petitioners have not worked in the said period and this Court after adjudicating the matter came to learn that the petitioners are working in the said period and this Court directed to file an affidavit to that effect. Now, the 1st petitioner has filed this affidavit admitting the wrong and stated that already he got paid salary upto September 2020 and 3rd petitioner has been paid salaries upto August 2020. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the salaries to other petitioners, who are not paid salaries upto September 2020, within a period of two weeks from today. Respondents are directed to file counter in I.A No.1 of 2023.” 15. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, as per the report/explanation submitted by the then 4th Respondent, it reveals that the Petitioners were worked up to September, 2020 only and later, they didn't attend the office and the due salaries to all the Petitioners were paid up to September 2020, for which the Duty certificates & Service Certificates are produced to an extent of Rs.10,08,868-00 by crediting the same to their individual accounts in two spells vide 4 th respondent’s Office Proceedings Rc.No.A6/ITDA/367/2010, Dt:23.02.2023 & Dt:03.03.2023 and no balance period is there to be paid, as they didn't attend the office later. 16. In view of the above, it appears that the amounts due to the petitioners have already been paid by the respondents and no balance period is to be paid, as they did not attend the office later. As far as claim of the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners services though long back shall be dispensed with the same is not done as per their oral requests on humanitarian consideration in another assignment i..e, MGNREGS, which since not possible at present as Horticulture administrative costs are not allowed. As far as claim of the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners services though long back shall be dispensed with the same is not done as per their oral requests on humanitarian consideration in another assignment i..e, MGNREGS, which since not possible at present as Horticulture administrative costs are not allowed. The regularization in the post of Agriculture Extension Officer also does not arise as said post shall be filled by way of deputation or by transfer from the concerned department only as per G.OMs.No.333 Finance (SPMC-I) Department, dated 11.11.2020. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.