lshtiyaq Ahmed v. 'l . The State of Telangana

Petition Under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dared 2410812017 in wpMp No 35368 of 2017 in w.p.No 28441 of 2017 and dismiss the writ petition. l.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 .e PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to direct the respondent auttiorities to consider and pass orders on the representation dt. 2310312023 made by the petitioner, by re-fixing his pay scale as per Revised Pay Scales-2020, pending final disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAVI CHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.GOPAL RAO Counsel forthe Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES- I The Court made the following ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2a44L OF 2Ol7 ORDER: Challenge in this Writ Petition is to Circular Memo No. 8242 A/329 lA 1, HRM vIIl2Ol7, dated 22-07-2O17 of the 1"r respondenl on thc ground that it s .not applicable to petitioner as he rvas absorbed into services of respondents 3 and 5 as Record Assistant since the date of order of the 4th responden[, as he was surpluS employee of the defunct Corporation of the 2.d respondent as on the date of issuance of the aforesaid Circulai Memo. A consequential direction is sought to sel aside the Proceedings dated 10 O8-2O17 of the 3'a respondenl.

2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed on 01 01-1992 in thc 2nd respondent Corporation as Attender and thereafter, \l'as promoted as Record Assistant in the existing vacant post. While so, as the 2"d respondent Corporation is facing hnancial crisis to pay salaries of the employees due to inadequate w'ork, the then Managing Director addressed Letter dated 08 l7 2Ol2 to the 4h respondent - District Collector to spare petilioner's services on deputation/ absorption. Petitioner is also stated lo have made an Application to the 4d' respondent expressing l'ris willingness to work in any Government t t t I 7 \ ''- -:-{ \! - Organizations/ Departments on deputation/ absorption. In vie'w, of vacancl. in the 5h respondent College, the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 3O.O7 .2073, absorbed his service into the 3.drespondenl and allotted him to the Regional Joint Director, Warangal for posting at Office of the 5h respondent as Rccord AssistanL, in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 24, dated, O9.OL.2OO2. Petitioner accordingly, on

04.O9.2013 Fore Noon joined the 5ft respondent College. While the matter stood thus, the 1"t respondent issued the impugned Circular Memo answering clarification of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy as to whether the retired surplus staff o[ the 2"d respondent, who are temporarily redeployed and saiaries were drawn and paid by the District Employment Ofhce are eligible for pensionary benchts like gratuity, Commutation of Pension and Pension or not and whether the . cases of children of such surplus employees are eligible for compassionate appointments or not' Instead of giving clarification, the 1"t respondent, without calling for explanations from Respondents 3 to 5 for continuation of services, who are redeployed and absorbed in organizations, declared that absorption of surplus employees is against the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 24 and the provisions of Act 2 of 1984 and also Act 14 of 199, hence null and uoid ab I I I -) initio. Further, the 1"t respondent declared that if any orders issued by the Departments/ District Collectors allotting surplus employees from APSCRIC or similar public-sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etcetera, to Government Departments would be in contravention of G.O.Ms. No. 24 as well as Act2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 1997- The l"t respondent instructed all the Departments and the District Collectors concerned to cancel such orders if any issued and repatriate such persons to their parent organizations immediately, besides initiating disciplinary proceedings against the olficials concerned in terms of Section 6 of Act 2 of 7994 and also recover the loss occurred to the Government due to such iltegal appointments, after duly ltxing the responsibility for such illegal orders. The 3'd respondent therefore, issued proceedings dated 10 08-2017 to all the principals and Regional Joint Directors to take immediate action to repatriate the redeployed staff from APSCRIC Ltd. or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etc., to their parent department immediately under intimation to this Office ignoring the fact that petitioner's service was absorbed as on the date of redeployment by the 4h respondent in the 3'd respondent, as such the impugned Circular is not applicable to him is the grievance of petitioner' I I t { 4 .- \l \l \ Further, it is cor.tended that his parent department is no more and the same is defunct as on the date of issuance of the said Circular. The complaint of petitioner is that so far, no one was repatriated to parent department in entire State, however, the 3'd respondent without giving any notice to him for that matter to the affected employees or the 5m respondent issued proceedings dated iO-O8 2Ol7 to the 5h respondent to take action. As the 2"d respondent Corporation is defunct, it is stated, petitioner is apprehending that the 5d respondent may pass orders of repatriation.

3. On 24.O8.2O 17, this Court directed that sfarus guo obtaining as thaL day should be maintained in respect of petitioner only.

4. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1, 3 and 5, it is stated, consequent upon the impugned Memo, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education through Proceedings dated 10-O8-2017 instructed all the Principals of Govt. Degree Colleges in the State to repatriate all the candidates redeployed from the 2"d respondent or similar public-sector undertakings, Societies or other Organizations/ Offices to their parent department immediately. The Government in continualion to the impugned Memo issued another Circular Memo daled '- I I t t - ) l3-lo 2077 instructing all the Departments and the District Collectors concerned to cancel the orders if any issued allotting surplus employees from the 2"d respondent or similar public- sector undertakings, societies or other organizations/ bodies etcetera, to Government departments and repatriate such persons to their parent organizations immediately, besides initiating disciplinary proceedings against the officials concerned in terms of Section 6 of Act 2 of 1994 and also recover the loss occurred to the Government due to such illegal appointments. after duly fixing the responsibility for such illegal orders. Further the Government examined the matter in detail and issued the following further instructions in continuation to the earlier Circular Memo: " a) The Surplus staff of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings societies, or other organizations/ bodies etc , who were allotted and redeployed to various Government Departments shall be deemed to have been repatriated to their parent organizations with effect from the date of issue oiinstruc[ions in the earlier Circular memo and their original status of employment in their parent organizatrons prior to their redeployment to Government departments shall be continued. b1 Ho*".r.., the existing deptoyment of the surplus staff of corporations or similar public sector undertakings, socreties, or other orginizations/ bodies etc-, in the Government departments shall be treated as deputation and their services can continued to be utilized by the borrowing departments on deputation basrs c) The establishment mattcrs of the staff of the corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etc., deployed to various Government departments on deputation shall be dealt in the concerned Corporation or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etc., onll'. d) The emoluments like salary, leave salary, EPI- Contributions etc., of the staff deployed to other departments on deputation shatt be paid by the concerned Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations / bodies etc., and the I t ! t II -- t I l 6 .- Y1""1 \I \ Corporation or similar public sector undertakings, societies or other organizations/ bodies etc., may send a requisition to the drawing officers of the concerned Government Department to which their staff are deputed, for reimbursement, o[ the emoluments paid to the staff. After receipt of the request from the respective Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etc., for reimbursement of the amount paid to the staff with all details, the borrowing departments shall reimburse the same to the respective Corporatlons or similar public sector undertakings, societies or other organizations/ bodies etc., duly debiting the samc to the detailed head "28O- professional services/284 respective service head of the department. AI1 the Heads of Departments/ District Collectors are directed to return the service registers/LPC'S of the surplus staff of Corporations or simitar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/bodies etc., who were allotted to Government departments in contravention of G.O.Ms.No. 24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated O9-O1-2OO2 as well as Act 2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 1997, to their parent Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organisations/ bodies etc so as to enable them to claim their emoluments. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the Pa1' aid Accounts Ofhcer, Hyderabad are directed not to honour the pay bills of the surplus employees of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etc., who were deployed / allotted to Government departments in contravention of G.O.Ms.No. 24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated O9-O1- 2OO2 as well as Act 2 ot 1994 and Act 14 of 1997 the same was communicated to all the Principals of GDCs in the State by the 3rd respondent through CCE's Procgs. No. 410/OP-l 1l2ol7, dt. 22.12.2017 with instructions to take necessary action in the matter. It is respectfull-\, submitted that the Government in their u.o.Note No.14148/571/A1/HRM.Vtt/2017, dated: 15.12.2017 from Finance (HRM.Vll) Department \r,hile enclosing the Hon'ble High Court dated: 26.10.2017 requested the Higher Order Education Department to examine orders of the High Court dated: 26-10.2017 and take expeditious action in the matter as per the instructions lssued in the Government Circular Memo No.8242 A/329lAllHRM.VII/2017, dated: 22.Q7.2O 17 and Government orders in vogrle as they are administratively concerned"- In view of the above, the claim of petitioner to continue his services in the 5fi respondent college in the Department of Collegiate Education is against the impugned Circular Memo and Circular Memo dated 13.10.2017 issued by the lst Respondent. 1 The 6th respondent also made averments in line 5. with the counter of Respondents 1 , 3 and 5 It is fr-rrthcr stated that all the Heads of Departments/ District Collectors are directed to return the service registers/ LPC's of the srrrplus stafl of Corporations or similar public-sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/bodies, etcetera, who v"'ere allotted to Government departments in contravention of G'O Ms No' 24, Finance (SMPC) Department, dated 09 Ol-2OO2 as '"vell as Act 2 of 1994 and Act 14 of 19.97, to their parcnt Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etcetea, so as to enable them to claim their emoluments. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the Director of Works Accounts and the Pay and Accounts Officer, Hyderabad are directed not to honour the pay bills o[ surplus employees of Corporations or similar public sector undertakings, societies, or other organizations/ bodies etcetera, who were deployed/ allotted to Government departments in contraventiot-t of G.O.Ms.No. 24, Finance (SMPC) Department dated O9-01-20O2 as well as Act 2 o[ 1994 and Act 14 of 7997 the same was communicated to all the Principals of GDCs in the State by the 3rd respondent through CCE' Procgs No' 410/OP I- 1l2ol7 , dated 22.12.2017 with instructions to take necessary action in the matter. Government in their U'O Note dated I I t I I I t 8

15.12.2O17 from Finance (HRM.VII) Department while enclosing the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 26.10.2017 requested the Higher Education Department to examine orders of the High Court dated 26.10.2017 and take cxpeditious action in the matter as per the instructions issued in lhe impugned Memo and Government orders in vogue as they are administratively concerned. Fr.rrther, it is stated, this Court on 28.04.2023 in I.A. No.1 of 2023 directed respondent authorities to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 23.O3.2023 made by petitioner, by re-hxing his pay scale as per Revised Pay Scales-2o2o, pending hnal disposal of the main W. P., within eight weeks from date of receipt of copy of the order and communicate the same to him. ln [he circumstances, uide CCE Proceedings dated .12 06-2023, the request of petitioner for pay fixation under revised pay scales 2020 was considered and the same was rejected as per Circular Memo dated 13.1O.2017. It is further s[ated that pursuant to the order of stdtus quo dated 24.O8.2O17, petitioner is continuing in the 5tl' respondent college, but was not granted any reiief with regard of pay hxation. Finally, it is stated, petitioner was redeployed from the 2"a respondent in contravention of guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No. 24, dated O9-O1-2OO2, hence, he is not entitled for 9 revision of pay in Revised Pay Scales 2020. Sanre has been considered in CCE Proceeding File No. CCE-()P3 / CC I | 12023 OP-lll, dated 12-06-2023 and rejected. The Wrir [)ctirion is therefore, liable to bc dismissed.

6. Heard Sri V. Ravi Chandran, learnc<l counsel lor pe[itioner on behalf of Sri S. Gopal Rao, learnecl counsel for petitioner as well as learned Government Pleadr:r lor Scrvices-l.

7. lt is, no doubt, true, lhe 2nd respondent Corporation is a governntent undertaking; owing to hnanci:rl cr.rsis, scrvices of petitioner were absorbed by the 4d' respondent and by proceedings dated 3O.07.2O13 was allotted to tlrc Rcgional Joint Director, Warangal for posting at the officc of principal Government Degree College, Armoor as a Rccor(l Asststitnt. However, bl, the Circular Memo impugned, the lsr re spondent declared the employees of the 2nd respondent as surplus and re-deploying them in govcrnment departmen rs tr-y invoking orders in G.O.Ms.No. 24, dated 09.OI.2022 is against the orders issued in tht: said G.O. and the provisions of Ar:t 2 of 1994 and also Act 14 of 1997, hence, null and uoid ab initio. Hence, all the Departments and the District Collectors concerned were instructed to cancel such orders, if any issued itnd repatriate such persons to their parent organisation immedizrlel.y. 'lhe said Circular followed another Circular Memo datcd l3.lO.2O17 I I I I I ! I t t 10 instructing all the Departments and the District Collectors concerned to cancel the orders if any issued allotting surplus employees from the 2"d AP S tate Co-operative Irrigation Corporation Limited or similar public- sector undertakings, societies or other organizations/ bodies etcetera to Government departments and repatriate such persons to their parent organizations immediately, besides initiating disciplinary proceedings against the officials concerned in tcrms o[ Section 6 of AcL 2 of 1994 and also recover the loss occurred to the Government due to such illegal appointments, after duly Iixing the responsibility* for such illegal orders. 8 The apprehension of petitioner is that th,e 2"d respondent Coi-poration is defunct and if the 5d' respondent repatriates him, he would suffer irreparable loss. In this connection, learned counsei for petiLioncr relied on the order dated O4.06.2O24 in Writ Petition No. 27719 of 2O2l . In similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition, wherein also, the impugned Circular Memo was challenged, holding petitioner therein as a government servant and that he is entitled to retirement benefits within a prescribed period.

9. In the light of the above order, since petitioner was deployed / absorbed in the 3'a respondent prior to the issuance l1 o[ impugned memo and was allotted to the 5fr respondent' this CourtiSoftheopinionthatheshallbetreatedaStheemployee of the 3"1 respondent, working with the 5h respondent for all the 2^d resPondent praclical purposes. Further, slnce Corporalion is not existing and has question of repatriation to such a Corporation does not arise ln become defunct, Lhe thecircumstances,thecontentionsofrespondentsdonothold water. Thc Writ Petition therefore, deserves to be allowed'

10. I i - The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed' No costs Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closed. rhat Rule Nisi has.been 1:":i#tffiif$ce sUJoY PAuL, on this H.','J,T'J:"rffiliJ: ["r:;i;ir' rwo rhousand and rwentv rive' I I /TTRUE COPY// "'A!;3'ooRYi:EAt[t[ I i____-, N OFFICER SECTIO To '1.

2. J,

4. q b Department' T S' Secretariat' State of The Principal Secretary' .Finance i"["g""i't Hy!erqb3d, lts,r," cooperative Ru.ral,l rrigation corporation The trianaging Director' A'F ' -li;'6r";;;;, Hyderabad, TiS. Ltd., HACA Bhavan, OP!rui"i""rcof The Commissioner, Comml Hvderabad. The District Collector, The PrinciPal, Govt' u District, T.S. ih;';i"iDi,".tor-r^andEx-offi Si;,i";i3!fl ,l"Jrt3,Ji3P'..%':[:ll",K:i" education, O/o the Commts: +*."ttS* Gp FoR sERvlcES -r, Hish court for the State of relangana at abad District, T'S Collage, Armoor Town ano f bgiite Education, Nampally. -^, lv1andal, Nizamabad Nizam jRl'J"oPAL RAo' Advocate toPucl Bl1"3t?3 Two CD CoPies 7 I I SA GJP q -{riE s14 ''r(r 't c). O 4 AUE 2U25 HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 ORDER WP.No.28441 of 2017 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @*f.4 b_- A4.r