WP/22342/2004 of The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing), Vs K. Sanjeeva Reddy, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

And

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 22342 of 2004

Between:

1 The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing), Warangal.

2 The District Panchayat Officer, Warangal, Warangal District.

..... PETITIONERS

AND

K. Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Pratap Reddy, Bill Collector, Peddamupparam Gram Panchayat, Viz., Vadde Kothapally, Warangal District.

.....RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toIssue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorariand calling for the records relating and pertaining to O.A.No. 4679/1998, dt.20.10.2003 on the file the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash thesame.

Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II

Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.KESAVA RAO

The Court at the admission stage made the following:

ORAL ORDER: (per PSN.J.)

The Writ Petition is filed praying for a writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and calling for the records relating andpertaining to O.A.No.4679 of 1998, dated 20.10.2003 on the file of A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same and pass such othersuitable orders.

2. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II had pointed out that thoughspecific ground had been taken in the additional counter, the Tribunal had notconsidered the aspect that the expenditure on the salary of the establishmentnot to exceed 30% of the normal income of the Gram Panchayat, but on theother hand rejected the same on the ground that it is only an after thought.

3. No doubt the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has produced aletter addressed by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Mahabubabad, dated11.7.2001 to the District Collector, Warangal. The Tribunal while making theorder had stated at para 7 as hereunder:

“The applicant has been in service since 1982. The applicantapproached this Tribunal seeking a direction to consider the caseof the applicant for appointment as Bill Collector in the existing orfuture vacancies. This Tribunal allowed the OA.No.1325 of 1997and directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicantfor appointment as Bill Collector. The Gram Panchayat,Peddamupparam by its resolution dated 29.4.1991 requested theDistrict Panchayat Officer to upgrade the full time contingent postand to appoint the applicant in the said post. The Sarpanch, GPPeddamupparam vide letter dated 10.6.1991 had forwarded therecommendation to the Divisional Panchayat Officer,Mahabubabad. P.Sambaiah, Satyanarayana, B.Kedari andJ.Anjaneyulu who are juniors to the applicant and who are parttime employees have been regularized and they have beengranted full time scale. The respondents have not shown any otherground other than that if the applicant is granted that scale the expenditure of the Gram Panchayat would exceed 30% of theincome towards staff and this is contrary to the Government Orderin GO.Ms.No.176, dated 23.3.1988. This plea has been taken forthe first time in the additional counter and the same is liable to berejected as an after thought. The applicant is entitled for the payscale of Bill Collector”.

4. It is evident from the nature of the order being passed by the Tribunal thatwithout going into the merits or demerits of the contentions raised on theground that the plea had been taken for the first time in the additional counter isan after thought, the said contention had been rejected. The question whetherthe expenditure of Gram Panchayat would exceed 30% of its income towardsstaff or not may have to be decided on the basis of the material, which may beproduced before the Tribunal. Liberty is given to the parties to produce theconcerned material, if any, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is expected toafford the opportunity to both parties in this regard and dispose of the matterafresh taking into consideration the said material, which may be placed beforethe Tribunal in this regard. The matter is accordingly remitted back to theTribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law within a period of two (02)months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. Nocosts.

-------------------------------(G.BIKSHAPATHY, J.)30[th] December, 2004.

-------------------------------(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)SSR

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing), Warangal.

2 The District Panchayat Officer, Warangal, Warangal District.

3 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

4 2 CCs to G.P. for Services-II, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT)

5 2 CD copies.