HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 26991 OF 2009. DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN The Principal Secretary to Government of AP, Transport, R&B Departments, Secretariat, Hyderabad & anr ….Petitioners and P. Devidas …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 26991 OF 2009. ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 17.11.2009 passed OA.No.961 of 2009 and C.A.No.921of 2009, directing implementation of G.O.Rt.No. 842, TR&B, dated 16-7- 2009, which was issued at the instance of the respondent/applicant this Writ Petition is ﬁled by the Government. The respondent/applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in the department of Roads and Buildings; thereafter he got promotions and while working as Superintendent Engineer, he was posted as Superintendent Engineer (Procurement Monitoring Oﬃcer) in the Finance (PMU) Department, AP Secretariat, on deputation. While so, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.842,TR&B, dated 16.7.2009 repatriating him to his parent department, i.e. to the post of Superintending Engineer, R&B, Quality Control Circle, Hyderabad from the deputation post of the Finance Department. The said order of repatriation were marked to the respondent/applicant through the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Admn., Hyderabad, Pay & Accounts Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Principal Secretary to the Government, Finance Department etc. It is stated that the said order was issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and as such as it is an Executive Order, the same was communicated by putting in the Website. After receipt of the said order, the Engineer-in-Chief, R&B, Admn., second petitioner herein, addressed a letter dated 20.07.2009 to the Election Authority & Commissioner & Special Oﬃcer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, requesting him to intimate whether there is any election related commitment for the respondent/applicant so as to take necessary action pursuant to his relieve from the Finance Department to join in the Road & Buildings Department. It is stated that as there is no election related commitment for the respondent/application, the Government issued orders in G.O.Rt.No. 842, TR & B, Dated 16.7.2009 and consequential order vide OO.Rt.No. 53, dated 24.7.2009 repatriating the respondent/applicant to the Roads and Buildings Department from the Finance Department and he was requested to handover the charge of his seat to one Sri Ch. Bapi Raju, APMO. It is stated that the petitioner was relieved on the same day handing over the charge of his seat in the Finance Department and reported to the second respondent on 25.07.2009. It is stated that pursuant to the note from the OSD to the Minister (R&B), dated 22.7.2009, the Government vide Memo dated 22.7.2009 kept the orders in G.O.Rt.No. 842, dated 16.7.2009 in abeyance until further orders and the second respondent was directed to take further action in the matter. The Tribunal found that the said Memo dated 22.7.2009 was not at all communicated either to the second petitioner or the Finance Department by the date the respondent/applicant was relieved from the repatriation post on 24.7.2009. However, as the respondent/applicant was not allowed to join in the given post in his parent department, he ﬁled the OA for implementation of G.O.Rt.No. 842, dated 16.7.2009. The Government ﬁled counter before the Tribunal admitting the repatriation of the respondent/applicant to his parent department vide G.O.Rt.No. 842, dated 16.7.2009 and consequential Memo OO Rt.No. 53,dated 24.7.2009 thereto. It was further stated that G.O.Rt.No. 842, dated 16.7.2009 was kept in abeyance prior to the relieve of the applicant by the Finance Department on 24.7.2009. The counter is silent as to whether the Memo dated 22.7.2009 issued by the Government keeping the repatriation order in abeyance is communicated to the Finance Department and the second petitioner. The Tribunal having found that the Memo dated 22.7.2009 keeping the repatriation orders in abeyance was not communicated either to the Finance Department or the second petitioner even by 24.7.2009, the date on which the respondent/applicant was relieved, rejected the contention of the petitioners/Government that the orders of repatriation were already kept in abeyance before the respondent/applicant was relieved from the Finance Department and allowed the OA directing the second petitioner to admit and give posting to the respondent/applicant as per G.O.Rt.No.842, dated 16.7.2009. It is to be seen that in the G.O.Rt.No. 842, dated 16.7.2009, it is stated that the repatriation of the respondent/applicant is subject to election related commitments of GHMC, if any, and, pursuant to the same, the second petitioner addressed a letter dated 20.7.2009 to the Election Authority & Commissioner & Special Oﬃcer, GHMC, to intimate him whether there is any election related commitment for the respondent/applicant to GHMC elections so as to enable him to take necessary action pursuant to his relieve from the Finance Department to join in the new post. As there was no any objection and that the respondent/applicant was not required for any election related commitment, the Finance Department issued O.O.Rt. No. 53, dated 24.7.2009 relieving the respondent/applicant on 24.7.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner got himself relieved on 24.7.2009 by handing over the charge of his seat to Sri Ch. Bapi Raju, APMO and reported to the second petitioner on 25.7.2009. A perusal of the Government Memo Dated 22.7.2009 discloses no reasons for keeping the repatriation order in abeyance. There is no mention at all in the said Memo apparently that the orders are kept in abeyance, on account of a note from the OSD to the Minister (R&B). Even the counter ﬁled on behalf of the Government before the Tribunal did not disclose as to why the repatriation orders were kept in abeyance. On the other hand, the petitioners ﬁled the present Writ Petition questioning the order of the Tribunal in directing implementation of the repatriation orders. We do not see any justiﬁcation on the part of the petitioners in questioning the said order of the Tribunal. Even now, it is not known for what purpose the repatriation order was kept in abeyance. We are also of the opinion that keeping the repatriation order in abeyance is against the public interest without extracting work from the respondent/applicant since 25.7.2009. The non-payment of salary to the applicant/respondent from 25.7.2009 is clearly attributable to and at the instance of the OSD to the Minister (R&B) and he alone is responsible for the applicant/respondent not getting either the posting or the salary. Till date, the petitioners have not taken any further action to rectify their mistake, and, kept their own G.O. in abeyance and protracting the litigation vexatiously without any justification. For the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs quantiﬁed at Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondent/applicant. --------------------------------- JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH ---------------------------------------------- JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR DATED 10T H DECEMBER, 2009. Msnr.