Nampally, Hyderabad v. Nampally, Hyderabad

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel EDUCATION The Court made the following : the Respondent No.: GP FOR ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring proceedings in Rc. No. VAOC.I.A.I.1/176/2006.2(A)-5 dated 15.11.2006 and Rc. No.VOC.I.A.I.1/176/2006.1(B)- 6 dated 15.11.2006 and the order dated 10.9.2007 made in O.A. No. 7151 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and to consequentially to direct the respondents to pay the minimum pay to the petitioner herein with all consequential benefits, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner herein filed the above OA questioning action of the second respondent in withdrawing the minimum pay scale and to recover 50% of lumpsum and remaining amount in 30 equal instalments and to direct the respondents to pay the minimum pay scale as per the proceedings in Rc. No. VOC-I-3/780/2003 dated

15.3.2003 with all consequential benefits with effect from July, 1993 as per GO Ms. No. 352 Intermediate Education Department dated 1.10.1994. The petitioner was initially appointed on 13.7.1993 at Government Junior College, Chenchalguda and thereafter reappointed under the control of respondent. The petitioner was paid salary on hourly basis and thereafter on 15.3.2003, the respondents allowed to draw minimum pay scale to the Part-Time Lecturers along with others. While so, the respondents issued show cause notice dated 27.2.2006 to dispense with the service of the petitioner as he was not in service on 25.11.1993 and to recover the amounts paid in the minimum pay scale, to which the petitioner submitted explanation. The second respondent through order dated

15.11.2006 withdrew the minimum pay scale and issued proceedings dated 15.11.2006 to recover 50% of the ineligible amount in lumpsum within three months and the remaining balance amount in thirty equal instalments, which came to be challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the O.A. along with a batch of petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition inter alia contending that since the petitioner is working in a regular vacancy, the minimum pay scale was granted on 15.3.2003 along with others and revised from time to time as per GO Ms. No. 352 dated 1.10.1994 and, therefore, the action of the respondents in cancelling the pay with retrospective effect and ordering recovery is discriminatory. Admittedly, since a large number of part-time lecturers were working, the Government formulated a scheme in GO Ms.No. 166 Education dated 8.6.1994 for regularisation and also for the sanction of minimum time scale to them, who were working in regular vacancies or where the appointment on regular vacancies is justified for more than three years by 30.4.1991. There were also certain conditions that they have to take 16 hours work in a week and have put in five years of service by

25.11.1993, subject possessing prescribed qualifications. It is, however, not in dispute that the benefit of regularisation extended to the Part Time Lecturers through GO Ms. No. 352 Education, dated 1.10.1994 was also extended to those working in Government Junior College. The said GO reads that the following conditions should be satisfied. 1) They should have put in five years of service by

25.11.1993 2) They should have 16 hours of work load in a week. 3) They should be working in a regular vacancy. 4) They should possess prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Lecturer(Vocational Course), 5) To extend minimum pay of the pay scale to the post. Now let us examine whether these conditions are fulfilled by the petitioner, so as to claim the relief. Even according to the petitioner, he was appointed on 13.7.1993 and posted at Govt. Junior College, Chenchalguda. Therefore, the question of his putting in five years of service by 25.11.1993, which is the cut off date prescribed in GO Ms. No. 352 dated 1.10.1994, does not arise. Further, though the petitioner himself stated that he was paid on hourly basis, the affidavit is conspicuously silent as to whether there was 16 hours work load in a week and in a regular vacancy. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in observing that even if the petitioner’s case is examined in the light of GO Ms. No. 101 Higher Education dated 29.7.2006, he does not satisfy the relaxed conditions and, as such, he is not entitled for minimum scale of pay. There is nothing on record which suggests that that the petitioner has completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, that there was 16 hours work load in a week or that he was working in regular vacancy. The Tribunal, adverting to all aspects of the matter, has exhaustively dealt with the issue and negatived the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner herein. Having gone through the order impugned, we do not see any illegality warranting interference. Consequently, the writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 18, 2008 MAS.