The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION ITRI NO.76 OF 2017 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sn Justice .lvarsin g Rao Nandikonda) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hled seeking the following prayer 'to dedare the rule 3O(d) of A.P.Stote Subordinate Serwice Rules in so Iar os tt relates to treattng a person utho is reappointed afier accepting resignation as a Jresh appointment and further declaing that he is nol entitled. to count anA portion oJ seruice benefits and concessions admissible under ong ntle or an order as orbitrary illegaL unconstitutional uiolating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the sam.e. And declare the impugned G.O.RI No.12, Women Deuelopment Child Welfore Dsable Welfare (Estt-A 1), Department dated 24.O2.2OO9 issued bg the 2"drespondent in so far @s it relates to treating the reoppointment of the applicant a-s fiesh appointment as Superutsor GradeJ ajter allowing the applicant to uritfulrauJ ter resignation is concerned as qrbitrqry itlegal and unconstitutional in uiolarion of Articles 14, 16 qnd 21 of tte Constitution of India and set astde the some and issue conseElential directiors directing the responrTents to count the preufurus seruice and continuitA serulce of applicant urithout back wages tncrements for the out of seruice peiod and fix the pag of the applicant as per RPS olong uith irTcrements and also direct tle resporldents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to higher post on par uith juniors uith all consequential b enefits. "

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Creche Teacher in Women arrd Child Welfare Department in the year 1985 through Employment Notification. Subsequently, the petitioner was selected for the post of Extension Ofhcer, W&CW (Grade-I) through Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), Hyderabad under direct recruitment, however the concemed authorities delayed nearly five (5) years for giving appointment order after her selection by the APPSC 2 fSru & tt-u WP(IR) No.76 ol 2017 due to non-procl -rction of Social Service Certihcate in a proper format. Subsequently, she submitted necessary certihcate before the Secretar5r, APPSC. Thereaftcr, rcspondent No. I issued Memo No.906/ Estt.A l /93_ 13, dated 17.01 .1991' instructing the Regional Deputy Director, Warangal to issue posting ordr:rs to the petitioner as ,Extension'Ofhcer,. In pursuance of the same, the f.legional Deputy Director issued posting orders to the pelitioner, uide Proc.356/B/92, dated 17.03.1997. Aggrieved by the delay in issuing .ppoin[ment order, the petitioner requested the authorities concerned to con,;ider her appointment w.e.f., 1993 instead of 199g on par with similar selrcted persons recruited under the same notification. Meanwhile, depa'tmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a show-causc notice No.a35/A2l2OO3, dated 18.1O.2O03, was issued to her with rec,ard to the administrative and finaniial irreg,iarities committed by hc ,-. Aggrieved by the said show-cause notice, the petitioner out of frustration submitted resignation from service on 1O. 1 I .2003.

3. Mr. I\,{.Saleem, learned counsel for the pedtioner submits that due to mental agony, frustration and depression meted out by the petitioner and also continuance harassment meted our. by her in the hands of her husband. she applied for resignation on 10.11.2003. Without application of rnLnd and the same was accepted by the respondents on

24.1I.2OO3 and issued proceedings uide proceedings No.435/A2/2OOO, dated 24.11.20O3. 'l'hereafter, she made an application on 05.01.2004 before the respordents to withdraw her resignation zrnd respondent No.l t f 3 PSKJ & NNRJ WPITR) No.76 of 2017 accepted her request for withdrawal of resignation and issued G.O.Ms.No. 12, Women Development Child Welfare & Disable Welfare (Estt- A1) Department, dated 24.O2.2OO9. Pursuant to the said G.O., respondent No.4, the Regional Deputy Director issued proceedings No.191lEl2OO3, dated 13.O3.2009 permitting withdrawal of resign4tion and re-appoinLing the petitioner as Supervisor Grade-I without any previous consequential financial and service benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner submitted her representation before the respondents for withdrawal of her resignation, but the respondents without appreciating her past service, have re-appointed without continuier of service and other financial benefits. He further submitted that when the respondents have accepted her withdrawal of resignation and allowed her to join duty, the respondents cannot turn round and say that the petitioner is not eligible for continuity of service. In as much as, such fresh appointment will arise only, in case when the respondents have not accepted request of the petitioner for withdrawal of resignation.

5. trarned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner was issued show-cause notice on 18.10.2003. The departmental proceedings initiated against her were pending at the time of her resignation. He further contended that acceptance of resignation while an employee is under inquiry is not allowed as per A.P.Subordinate Rule 30 clause (iii) of sub-rule (a) of the Rules, which clearly states that resignation I 4 PSKJ h II,IRJ WP(TR) No.76 ol 2017 of a Member of llervice shall not be accepted against whom disciplinary proceedings arc nstituted as per the provisions of Andhra pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule, 1991 or investigation, inquiry or trial r; initiated. Acceptance of resignation itself being against the Rule and Lar,, therefore, acceptance of resigndtion itself is not valid as per the Rule ancl laws and the grant of fresh appointment of the petitioner into service does not arise.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that basically disciplinary pro.eedings were pending when the petitioner,s resignation was acceptcd br the respondents on 24.11.2003 and the departmental proceedings were concluded on O1.12.2OO3 after the acceptance of resignation. Thi:; clearly indicates that the departmental proceedings against the. pcr itior-rer were pending when the petitioner made an application lor r.signation and rhe same was accepted by the respondents pending departnrent proceedings. This is nothing but bad in law and against the hrst proviso ro Clause (iii) of sub-rule (a1 of the Rule 30 of the A.P.State & Sul:ordinate Service Rules, 1996. He further submits that during penclenc\ of this rvrit petition, the petitioner retired from service on 3O.O9.2O2O on ilttarning the age of superannuation as per proceedings No.3783/El /20)9, dated 22.tt.2019 issued by the respondent No.4 and due to pendenc5 of writ petition, she is not receiving pensionary benefits till date thereby shr: is facing serious financial diffrcuki.s and also suffering from severe chr.nic kidney disease and cardiac problems. Hence learned 5 WP(TR)No.76 oJ 2017 ,/' counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to release the retirement benehts and other consequential benefits.

7. Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Law & Legislation (Services-Il) appearing for respondent Nd.3 contended that the petitioner's resignation was accepted by respondent No.4, Regional Deputy Director, Hyderabad and issued Proceedings No.435/A2I2OOO, dated 24.11.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation before respondent No. 1 to permit her to withdraw the resignation and the same was allowed and instructed the authorities to issue re-appointment orders without continuity of service, vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated

24.O2.2OO9. Accordingly, as per the instructions of respondent No. 1 , fresh appointment orders were issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4, Regional Deputy Director, Hyderabad, uide Proc.No.191 /El2OO3, dated 13.03.2009 in terms of sub Rule (c) & (d) of Rule 30 A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and in the appointment order, dated t 3.03.2OO9, it is clearly stated that the petitioner shall forfeit all her previous service in Department and her service will be treated as fresh candidate and her past service shall not be counted for any benefit or concession under any Rule of law or order.

8. l,earned Government Pleader further contended that the petitioner was absent for duty from 13.03.20O2 till she resigned to duty on

10.11.2003 and as per Service Register she has no leave at her credit and t 6 PSK.] & NNR) WP(TR)No.76 ol 2017 disciplinary proceedings urere pending againsl her for financial irregularities conrmitted zurd for absconding to duty. She further submitted that respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 2a.)2.2OO9 speci$ring to reappoint her as Supervisor Grade-I subject to conditions laid down under sub-rule (c) and (d) of Rule 30 of the Andhra pradesh State Subordinate Service RuJes, t996, continuity of her service does not arise. Hence learned Go\.ernrnent Pleader for respondents further submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9. Heard both sicles. Perused the material on record 1O. The point that arises for consideration bt:fore this Bench is, (i) whether the reslx)ndents have rightty accepted the resignation of th,r peti,.ioner $hen the departmental proceedings were pending against r.hc petitioncr and (ii) whether the responden:s have righdy issut:d lrcstr apl)ointment order after having accepted the rel)resentation tvithdrawing the petitioner's resignatLon?

11. ln Pramod Singh Chandra oo,nshl u. Sri Som pro,kash Singht this Court held that when the department proceedings are pending, resignzttion should not be accepted. Th<: relevant paragraph No.25 of tht: ordr:r reads as under:

25. Thu;, it is held that so long as departmental proceedings are pending and not concluded, a resignation cannot be accepted. From the evidence, as noted above, I had found that there was at lezrst ort: other departmental proceeding that was pending in which there h td been a recommendation for dismissal of the sole respondcnt. That proceeding remains unconcluded. The sole '2014 SCC Online pat 3rt6 : AtR 2014 pat 156 : (20i.4)3 BBCJ 119 7 PSKJ & NNRI wP(TR) No.76 oJ 2017 respondent was aware of it having appeared in it. Thus, in my view, in view of these facts, it is difhcult to hold that had this fact been brought to the notice of the DlG, DIG would have accepted the resignation. To the contrary, from the order of the DIG itself, it is apparent that had he been informed of this pending proceeding, he would not have accepted the resignation. Thus, I can safely hotd that the resignation, as accepted by the DIG, was wholly without jurisdiction as lau' did not permit him to accept the resignation pending departmental proceeding.

12. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to extract the Sub Rule (a) to (d) of Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

30. RESIGNATIOI:- (a) A member of a service may resign his appointment and the acceptance of his resignation by the appointing authority shall take effect: (i) in case he is on duty, from the date on which he is relieved of his duties in pursuance of such acceptance; (ii) in case he is on leave, from the date of communication of such acceptance to the member or if the said authority so directs, from the date of expiry of leave; and (iii) in any other case, from the date of communication of such acceptance to the member or from such other date, not being earlier than the date on which he was last on duty, as the said authority may, having regaJd to administrative exigencies, specrfy. Provided that the resignation of a member of a sewice, who is placed under suspension from service, pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges or who is deemed to have been suspended under rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classilication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 shall not be acceptcd during the period of such suspension. Provided further a member of a service may with draw his resignation before it takes effect. Provided also that no withdrawal of resignation shall be permitted except with the sanction of the Govemment, if the witldrawal is made after the resignation takes eflect. (b) If the resignation of a member of a service has been accepted, but has not taken effect and he withdraws his resignation before it has taken effect, he should be deemed to be continuing in service. If the person is permitted to witldraw his resignation after it has taken effect and is re- appointed to the post from which he resigned, such reappointment shall be subject to the conditions specified in sub-rules (c) and (d). 8 PSKJ & NNPJ WP(TR) No.76 ol2017 (c) A menrber o[ seNice, shatl, it he resigns his appointrrrent, forfeit not only the scrvice rendered by him rn the particular post h,:ld by him at the timc of r( rjignarion but all his previous service under the (iovernment. (d) The r r:appoinrmenr of a person, who has resigned frcm Govemment service ard who is re-appointed to any seruice, shall be tr{)ated in the same wav.rs er lllst.rppoiDtment to such service by direct re( ntitment and all rulcs go'reming such appointment shall apply; and on such re- apl)ointnrlrnt, lte shall noL be entitled to count any portion oI his previous scrvrce f(r'any bcncfit or concession admissiblc under an) rule or order."

13. The main contention of the learned Gorrernment pleader for Services-Il is that G.O.Rt.No.12, dated 24.O2.2OO9 was issued after considering the rretitioner's request for withdrawal of resignation in terms of Sub Rule (c) zr,d (d) of Rule 3o of the Andhra pradesh State Subordinate Service Rubs, 1q96.

14. On perusal of G.O.Rt.No.l2, dated 24.O2.2OOg, it is clear that tl.e petitioner sr-rbrnitted her resignation as part of her reply to show-cause notice, datt:d 18.10.2OO3 and other domestic reasons. Respondent No. 1 having accepted the representation of the petitioner and permitted to withdraw he r resignation, thcn the question of giving fresh appointment to her does not ari,. c.

15. ln Prq.mod Singh, ca.se (supra), it was, held that when the departmental proceedings are pending against an ernployee, accepting of resignation by thLe department is illegal. In the ..LSe on hand, bottr counsel accepted the fact that departmental proceedings were pending when the petitiorer tendered her resiglation and tht: respondents accepted the same rluring the pendency of departmental proceedings. Thereafter respondents concluded the departmental proceedings and imposed punishment after acceptance of the resignation, which itself is legal and 9 PSKJ & NNN wP(TR) N0.76 oJ 2017 contrary to law. Sub Rule (a) to (d) of Rule 3O of the Andhra Fradesh State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, clearly states that 'Provided that the resignation of a member of a service, who is placed under susPension from service, pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges or sho ls deemed to have been suspended under.rule 8 of the Andhra Fradesh Civil Services (Classifrcation, Control and Appeall Rules' 1991 shall not be accepted during the period of such susPensior.' By applying the said rule, the very acceptance of the resiglation is contrary to law when the departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner arrd the respondents ought not to have accepted the resignation when the departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner' The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have accepted and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the resigrration and therefore it is deemed to be the petitioner is in continuous service and all otJrer previous orders including accepting resignation is deemed to be non est in the eye of law and the question of re-appointment does not arise. Therefore the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct and is to be accepted' Further, the very acceptance of resignation is illegal and contrary to law and G.O.Rt No.l2, Women Development Child Welfare Disable Welfare (Estt-A 1), Department dated 24 O2.2OO9 and the proceeding issued by respondent No.1 are liable to be aside. L6. The very acceptance of the resignation was per se void and ab initio as it was in violation of Rule 8 of the Telangana state civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991' Thus, the acceptance of I 10 ..: WP(TR) No.76 ol 2017 resignation was unsustainable and untenable under the said Rules. This fact was brough t to the notice of the higher authorities by the petitioner with a request tc withdraw her resignation. The highr:r authorities in turn, realising the fac: that the acceptance of resignation *,as bad, allowed the prayer o[ the petitioner permitting withdradial of resignation vide proceedings datr:d 13.03.2009. The moment the resignation has been permitted to be rvithdrawn by the authorities in the department, what is to be taken note of is the consequence of it and which would relate back to the stage of acr:eptance of resignation. The allowing of withdrawal of resignation wor-r ld lcad to the acceptance of resrgnation not being in existence any fitrther in the record, nor can it be mrrde use of adverse to the interest of the employee. Once when the resignation has been permitted to be withdrarvn, the question of grant of re-appointment does not arise at all. The employee, for all practical purposes, would have to be treated as ii in service and the acceptance of resignation order, not being in acceptance. beir.l g given continuity of service to the pe:titioner from the date of acceptance ol resignation till it was permitted to be withdrawn. Hence, the subsequent order passed by the authorities vide G.O.Rt.No.l2, dated

24.O2.2OO9 whereby, on the one hand, the higher authorities have accepted the wi t hdrawal of resignation and, on the other hand, has ordered for re-appointmt:nt of petitioner, the latter part of the order projecting it as a fresh enlplo],ment or by way of re-appointment, is bad in law and technically unsrrstainable under the Rules. Therefore, the impugned order, to the aforr:said extent insofar as grant of re-appointrnent, is set aside and I t 11 *,no;::':r%f, the petitioner for all practical purposes shall remain on the rolls of respondents with continuity of service for the intervening period as well and would also be entitled for all consequential benefits except for the monetary benefits during the period of acceptance of resignation till it was \ withdrawn by the higher authorities vide proceedings dated 13.03.2009.

17. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (TR) is allowed in-part and the G.O.Rt No.12, dated 24.O2.2OO9, issued by the respondent No.1 and so also the subsequent proceeding No.L9l /El2OO3, dated 13.03'2009 issued by respondent No.4 are liable to be set aside and accordingly the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's service as continuous service from the date of her initial appointment till the date of her retirement and release all the pensionary and retirement benehts by taking into account the petitioner's service from the date of her initial appointment till the date of her retirement.

18. However, so far as monetary benefits are concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to claim in the intervening period of acceptance of resignalion till it was withdrawn by the higher authorities uide proceedings, dated 13.03.2009. But the pensionary benehts and all other retirement benefrts to the extent of the withdrawal of resignation holds good and the retirement benehts shail be given to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of this order, failing which the respondents are liable to pay interest @ 60/o on the entire eligible amount to the petitioner till the date of realization of the said amount. The remaining later part of the l 72 PSKI & NNRT WP(TR)No.76 ol 2017 impugned order is liable to be quashed There shall be no order as to Miscellanr:ous applications, if any pending, shzrll also stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE AGTING CHIEF JUSTIGE iu.Ioy PAUL, on this WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REgSTRAR F.l,\lV SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY (For His Lordships Kind perusal) AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA (For His Lordships Kind perusal) To

1. ll LRCopies 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, Hyderabad Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. Administration (Services) Secretan=at, Hyderabad-

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court 4. The Secretary, The State of Telangana, Secretary to Government, General 5. Principal Secretary, State of Telangana,'Women and Child Welfare Department. And Disabled Welfare and Senior Citizens Department Secretariat. Hyderabad. 6. Director, Direc:tor, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, 7. Regional Deprtty Director, W6men and Child Welfare Department, B. One CC to SRI M.SALEEM, Advocate tOpUCl 9. Two CCs to Gp FOR WOMEN DEV & CHTLD WELFARE, High Court for the 10.Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVTCES-il,-High Court for the State of Tetangana, at 1'1. Two CCs to GP FOR LAW & LEGISLAT|ON, Hish Court for the State of . - Telangana. at Hyderabad. [OUT] 12.Two CD Copres State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI Hyderabad [(f UTI Hyderabad. PSK. PSK g I , , ! HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 ORDER WP(TR).No.76 of 2017 ,i ri,L rS;i/i, {j t. \ 0 t APH ;l[tzs ( > o * D!snr.1cvt' :..) i PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION (TR) WITHOUT COSTS ril&e8w W