The High Court · 2025

Petition undqr Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumgtances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly qhe in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the order of the Honbie erstwhile A.P. Administratrve Tribunal dt. 30.11.2012'in O.A.Nq. 389012912 which is confirmed by this Hon'ble Court by an order dt.31.10.2022 in W.P.Nq. 2388712013 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and contrary to the law, apart trom violation of constitutional provisions and consequently direct thg rgspondents herein to implement the orders dt. 30.11.2012 in O-A.No. 389O12q12 Of thg flqnble erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal and as per the ordets issgq{ by the Governmenl in Memo.No. PRRD-LTE/g/'l 12023, dt. 5.10.2023 with att consequential benef its such as salary for 2 years from 58 years to 60 years, commutation, gratr-rity along with arrears etc with interest @ 18% per annum. ANO:1 OF2024 Petitiqn under Slection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct thg respondents he,rern to implement the orders dt 3O'.11.2012 in O.A.Nq. 389012012 of the H'rnble erstwhile A.P. Administr.ative Tribupal and as per tlg grders,issued by the. Ciovernment in Mem6.No. pRRD-LTE/91112029, dt. S.i0.2023 with all consequenti,al benefits sueh as salary for 2 years from q8 years to Q0 yeafs, commutation, gratuity along with arrears ete pgnding digposal of writ petition. : ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. SAI REDgY Gognsel for tfie Respondent No.l & 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsgl fo1 tfue Reepondent No.3: SRI P. K|SHORa n4g, $O FOB Zpp QgUnse! for the Respondent No.4 to 6: GB FOR FINAN9E & PLANNING CpUnsg! for tfte Respondent No.7: SRt K. BALA KRISHNA Th9 Cqgrt made the following; ORQER THE HON'BLT SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KTIMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SI[T. JIJSTICE TIRI'MALA DEVI EADA WRIT PEilTION No.35O53 of2024 ORDER : (Pet Hon'ble si Jltstil:e Abhinant Kunar shauili) This Writ Petition is h16d seeking a direcLion to implement the orders passed in O.A.No.389O of 2Ol2 dated 3O.11.2012 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri C. Sai Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Iearned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel for Teiangana State Zil1a Parishad, appearing for respondent No.3, iearned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri K.Bala Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a Gangman on 31.12.1982 and became an approved probationer. As per Rule 2, Category-S of the A.P. Last Grade Service Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.565, GAD, dated

24.l}.lgg2, ttre post of Gangman is included in the Last Grade Senrice. It is further contended that the age of superannuation for Last Grade Service employees is 6O years. The petitioner was awarded the Special Grade Scale upon completion of 1O years of 2 service anC the SPP I Scale upon completion of 16 years of service in the Gangman cadre under the automatic advancemernt scheme.

4. The p,31i1i6nsr further contended that, while the matter stood thus. the Government of A.p. took a policy decision to appoint last grade employees from various departments as Palchaya.t Secretaries. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No.369, pR & RD, dated 72.12.20O1, was issued, creating posts of pzrnchayat Secretaries for various categories, including Lasr_ Grade Employees, on an inter-departmentai deputation basis. In pursuance of this policy, the petitioner expres,sed his willingness tc work as a Panchayat Secretary. Accordingly, the 2"d responclent issued proceedings No.669/Kl. pts/ 2OO 1, dated

16.07 .2OO2, re-deploying him as a panchayat SecretuLry from the post o[ Gangman at Arepally Grampalchayat o;- Jaipur Mandal on inter-departmental deputation, while prote(:ting his service co.nrlitions concerning promotion in his parent department, along with pay protection. The petilioner further contended that his appointment as palchayat Secretan,was on an inter-departmental deputation basis, and he vras not absorbed as zr Panchayat Secretary on a permanent basis. Since the post of rlangman is part of the Last Grade Senrice, he contended t.hat he was entitled to retire at the age of 60, i.e., on

31.O5.2O14. Ilowever, tIrc 2"d respondent issued proceei.ings on 3 Tritrunal was Pleased to

31.Cl5.2012, retiring the petitioner from service on 31'05'2O12 upon attaining the age of superarnuation at 58 years' Challenging tlfs action, the petitioner filed O'A'No'3890 of 2Ol2 before the Administrative Tribunal in Hyderabad and the allow the O.A. and directed the the petitioner into service with all respondents to reinstate consequential benefits and continue him until he attains the age of 6O years, vide order dated 3O'71'2OI2' Aggrieved by the same, the State hled a writ petition before this Court i'e' W.P.No.23887 of 2013 and this Court dismissed the said writ petition on 31.1O.2022, conhrming the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the respondents are not implementing the order passed by the Tribunal, which has attained finality' Therefore, the petitioner has prayed to pass appropriate orders ' in the writ Petition.

5. The Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos'1 and 2 contended that the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3890 of 2012, dated 3O'11'2012, ]nas become final' Therefore, reasonable time may be granted to the respondents to comply with the orders passed by the Tribunal'

6. The Court, having corisidered the submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that since the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in O'A'No'389O of 2012' dated I t 4

30.1I.2O1i,,, has attained hnality, the respondents are directed to comply with the orders passed by the Tribunai in O.A.No.3il9O of 2072, dated 30.11.2012, within a period of four months fro:m the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7 With the above observations, the writ petition is ,Cisposed of. No costrs. As a sr:quel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR A ON OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, The Goveinnrentof Te[angana, SecrBtariat, Hyderabad. 4 5 6 -Ireasury Nirmal, Nirmal District. Qfficer, Nirmal, Nirmal District.

2. The District Collector, (Pahchayat Wing), Nirmal District, Nirmal. 3. The Mandal Parishad Development OlTiber (MPDO), Mandal Praja Parishad, . The Assistant . The District f'reasury Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District, . The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Telangana State, lnsurance . The Actpuntant General, Telangana Stale, Hyderabad. . One CG to SRI C. SAI REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] . Qne CC to SRI P KISHORE RAO, SC lor ZPP [OP(.IC] 0.One CC to SRI K. BALA KRISHNA, Advocate IOPUCI 1.T. wo CCS to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High Court for the State of Buildinqs. Abids, Hvderabad. 7I I 1 1 z.fwo dgs to'GP FoR PANCHAYAT ReJ, High courl for the State of Telangana [OUT] Jplang'ana [t)UT]

3.Two QD Copigs BN BS 1 I \{, HIGH COURT DATED:11t0212025 I I ORDER WP.No.35053 of 2024 ri 1t-- (o --::::-___ .,,u. ^]Jl :, q 04 wn tlJ.1s t / 1 L iT'- r,, ;.1 :---:-::i- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tu(