CC/1785/2011 of Tahara Begum Vs Sri Anil Chandra Punetha on 31 December 2013

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYAND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

Contempt Case No.1785 of 2011

Between:

Date: December 31, 2013

Mohd. Yousuf Ali (died per L.Rs.)

Tahara Begum and others

… Petitioners

And

Sri Anil Chandra Punetha and others

… Respondents

Order:(Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

This Contempt Case is filed by the legal heirs of onelate Mohd. Yousuf Ali, alleging wilful disobedience on the partof the respondents in complying with the directions of thisCourt in the order dated 01.03.2011 passed inW.P.No.16932 of 2001.

2. Late Mohd. Yousuf Ali was appointed as LowerDivision Clerk (Junior Assistant) in Revenue Departmenton 02.04.1962 and posted to Revenue Divisional Office,Medak, Sangareddy. Subsequently, he was posted asSpecial Levy Inspector, Andole and later deputed toChilver check-post of erstwhile Andole Taluq and on the allegation of accepting bribe he was placed undersuspension in initiated departmental proceedings witheffect from 07.02.1966. Subsequently, after completion ofenquiry, he was removed from service by order dated09.12.1966. Questioning his removal from service, heapproached this Court and the matter was remitted forreconsideration by the Collector. Again he was dismissedfrom service by order dated 21.05.1976. Questioning thesaid order, he approached the A.P. AdministrativeTribunal, Hyderabad and as per the orders of the Tribunal,again, his case was considered and order of removal waspassed on 09.02.1982. Even against the said order,again, he filed appeal and when the order dated09.02.1982 was confirmed, he filed RepresentationPetition No.1903 of 1986 before the A.P. AdministrativeTribunal, Hyderabad, which was allowed by order dated25.02.1987. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“In view of the decision given above, it is orderedthat the petitioner shall be immediately reinstatedin service forthwith in the same rank he held atthe time of his suspension. The question iswhether he should get any consequential rights. Since the petitioner is being restored to servicewithout any stigma on his character provedlegally, he should get consequential rights on afair basis. In my view, the petitioner should begiven arrears of salary in the rank of LDC subjectto all revisions from time to time from the date ofhis suspension in 1966 upto date subject to deduction of amount already drawn assubsistence allowance. He will get otherconsequential benefits in accordance with therules.

R.P. allowed accordingly but with no order as tocosts.”

3. Alleging disobedience of the aforesaid order, he filed M.A.No.907 of 1995, which was dismissed. Again, he filedRev.M.A.No.982 of 1996 and the same was alsodismissed by order dated 29.09.2000. Questioning thesaid order passed in Rev.M.A.No.982 of 1996 inM.A.No.907 of 1995 in R.P.No.1903 of 1986, heapproached this Court by filing W.P.No.16932 of 2001,which was allowed by order dated 01.03.2011. Theoperative portion of the said order reads as under:

“The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. Theimpugned order, dated 29.09.2000 passed inRev.M.A.No.982 of 1996 in M.A.No.907 of 1995in R.P.No.1903 of 1986 is set aside. It is heldthat the deceased petitioner would be entitled toall the benefits including the attendant benefit,arrears of salary etc., as already directed by theTribunal in the order, dated 25.02.1987 inR.P.No.1903 of 1986. No order as to costs.”

4. After orders were passed by the Tribunal on25.02.1987 in R.P.No.1903 of 1986, the deceased-Mohd.Yousuf Ali was reinstated into service, videProc.No.A3/4764/85, dated 28.04.1987, issued by theCollector, in the rank of Junior Assistant and was also paid arrears of salary from 1966 upto the date ofreinstatement, i.e. for 21 years along with benefits ofperiodical revisions in the cadre of Junior Assistant. Thereafter, he was continued in service and retired onattaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1987.

5. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that thedirections issued by the Tribunal in R.P.No.1903 of 1986,further reiterated in the order dated 01.03.2011 passed bythis Court in W.P.No.16932 of 2011, were notimplemented wilfully and deliberately by not extending thebenefit of seniority in the category of Upper Division Clerk,now re-designated as Senior Assistant. It is the case of thepetitioners that inasmuch as the deceased-public servantwas extended all consequential benefits consequent tohis reinstatement by the Tribunal and further directionsissued by this Court, respondents ought to have grantednotional promotion in the category of Upper Division Clerkand should have extended monetary benefits by grantingsuch notional promotion. Thus, it is the case of thepetitioners that, to the extent of depriving benefits in thecategory of Upper Division Clerk (Senior Assistant) to thedeceased, respondents have wilfully and deliberatelyviolated the directions of this Court.

6. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed along withsupporting material before this Court. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is statedthat the directions issued by the Tribunal have alreadybeen implemented fully in their letter and spirit. Withregard to the claim of promotion to the post of UpperDivision Clerk, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that thenext promotion from the category of Lower Division Clerk(Junior Assistant) is to the category of Upper DivisionClerk (Senior Assistant). It is further stated that as perRule 23(2) of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1966, nomembers of the service shall be eligible for promotion tothe post of Upper Division Clerk in Revenue Departmentunless and until he has passed the Revenue Tests Part-I,Part-II and Part-III and successfully completed theRevenue Survey Training for a period not less than sixweeks and has put in service as Revenue Inspector incharge of a firka for a period not less than one year; asper the Service Register, late Mohd. Yousuf Ali passedRevenue Test Part-II and III and entries to that effect weremade in the Service Register in the year 1963 while hewas working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of theRevenue Divisional Officer, Medak; with regard to passingof Revenue Test Part-I and Accounts Test Part-I, entrieswere made in the Service Register only on 14.07.1988after the date of retirement. There is no entry with regardto completion of Survey Training; thus, it is pleaded thathe was not eligible for promotion; the entries made in theService Register of the individual regarding passing of the tests makes it clear that the present claim of the individualis a result of an afterthought after retiring from the serviceand after four years after retirement, the deceased Mohd.Yousuf Ali approached this Court seeking promotionalbenefits; even by considering exemption for his passing ofthe required tests as per the orders in G.O.Ms.No.225,GAD (Ser.C) Department, dated 18.05.1999, as thedeceased did not undergo Revenue Survey Training,which is mandatory for considering for next levelpromotion; as such, he is not entitled for the benefit ofpromotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk.

7. The only question which is required to beconsidered in this case is whether there is any deliberateand wilful violation of the directions of this Court in theorder dated 01.03.2011 passed in W.P.No.16932 of2001.

8. It is true that when the order removing the deceasedMohd. Yousuf Ali was questioned by way of R.P.No.1903of 1986, before the Tribunal, the said R.P. was allowedwith a direction to reinstate him into service in the samerank he was holding at the time of his suspension. It is notin dispute that at the time of suspension, he was workingas Lower Division Clerk (Junior Assistant) and incompliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal, hewas reinstated as such. In view of the further directionsfor payment of all consequential benefits, he was also paid arrears of salary for 21 years. The Tribunal alsogranted directions for grant of consequential benefits. But,at the same time, it is to be noticed that, afterreinstatement as Lower Division Clerk (Junior Assistant)he worked as such for some time and thereafter retired onattaining the age of superannuation. Before retirement, hedid not obtain any positive direction for his promotion tothe category of Upper Division Clerk (Senior Assistant). When a contempt notice was issued, on the claim ofpromotion, the District Collector, Medak at Sangareddyconsidered the matter at length and passed orders videProc.No.A3/VS/4508/2009, dated 10.08.20111. Withregard to the claim of the deceased Government servantsfor promotion, the District Collector issued the aforesaidproceedings, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“With regard to the promotion, as per Annexure-IIto Rule 23(2) of A.P.M.S. Rules, 1966 read withG.O.Rt.No.1701, Revenue (Y) Dept., Dt:1.8.1979, no member in the service shall beeligible for promotion to the post of UpperDivisional Clerk in Revenue Department unlessand until he has passed the Revenue TestsParts-I, II and III and successfully completed theRevenue Survey Training for a period of not lessthan six weeks and put in a service as RevenueInspector incharge of a firka for a period of notless than one year. According to Annexure-I toRule-23(1) of A.P.M.S. Rules, 1966 the L.D.Cs.alone, who have passed Revenue Tests Parts-I,II and III and who have completed SurveyTraining for a period of not less than (6) weeks is eligible for being appointed as RevenueInspector. For the promotion above the cadre ofU.D.C. the prescribed tests also have to bepassed.

As verified with the service register of Sri YousufAli, Junior Assistant (retired & expired) the entriespassing the Revenue Test part-II and III areentered at Page No.7 during tenure as JuniorAssistant. The Revenue Test Part-I, AccountsTest for Subordinate officers Part-I and IndianEvidence Act Test (Criminal Judicial Test, Part-II)found entered in August, 1988, i.e., after his dateof retirement on 30.11.1997. There is no entryregarding passing of Survey Training Test.

It is clear that, Sri Yousuf Ali, Junior Assistantwhile he was in service has failed to produce theevidence of passing required departmental tests. He has also not undergone Survey Training. Assuch, he is not eligible for considering him forfurther promotion as per Upper Division Clerk andabove cadres. Likewise payment of promotionalbenefits as claimed by him also doesn’t arise.

As already mentioned in the aforesaid paras, allthe eligible benefits in the cadre of JuniorAssistant have been paid to Sri Yousuf Ali, JuniorAssistant while he was in service. He is notentitled for further promotions above the cadre ofJunior Assistant. There are no benefits left to begranted to Sri Yousuf Ali, Junior Assistant (retired& expired). Hence ordered accordingly.”

9. In the absence of any specific direction forpromotion, only on the ground that notional promotionbenefits were not granted, it cannot be said thatrespondents have wilfully and deliberately violated the directions of this Court. It is not in dispute that, after theorders of the Tribunal, he was reinstated as LowerDivision Clerk (Junior Assistant) and also paid entirearrears of salary in the category of Lower Division Clerk(Junior Assistant). As the denial of promotion was not thesubject matter of challenge before the Tribunal or thisCourt and in view of the stand of the respondents that thedeceased Modh. Yousuf Ali did not fulfil the eligibilitycriteria as per A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1966, forgrant of promotion from the category of Lower DivisionClerk (Junior Assistant) to the category of Upper DivisionClerk (Senior Assistant), only on the ground that notionalpromotion benefits are not given, it is not possible toaccept the claim of the petitioner that there is wilful anddeliberate violation of the directions of this Court in theorder dated 01.03.2011 passed in W.P.No.16932 of 2001.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any meritin this Contempt Case and the same is accordinglydismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if anypending stand closed. No order as to costs.

_____________________

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

December 31, 2013MRR

__________________________

A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J