THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5071 of 1998 Dated: 02.02.2010 Between: Syed Baquir Hussain Rirvi and others. .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education, And others. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, through selection process and on the basis of a resolution of the meeting held on 11.12.1991 of the Selection Committee of the 3rd respondent-Anwar-ul-loom Junior College, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 24.12.1991 appointed the 1st petitioner (since died) as a Junior Lecturer in Mathematics in its College in the time scale of Rs.1550-3050 with effect from the date of his joining duty. According to the 1st petitioner, the post in which he was appointed is a grant-in-aid post fell vacant on account of the retirement of one Dr. Masood Ali Khan. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that though the appointment of the 1st petitioner was approved and his appointment order indicates the scale of his pay as Rs.1550-3050, he was paid only Rs.800/- per month for about one year, Rs.900/- per month for the 2nd year, Rs.1,000/- for the 3rd and 4th years and Rs.1,050/- per month for the 5th year. It is further stated that in the month of August, 1997, the 3rd respondent College informed him and other staff members to attend another college run by them at Mallepally, which is an unaided college, but he did not accept for the same and continued in the same college. Contending that he had not been paid the salaries by the 3rd respondent College from the month of August, 1997, in spite of rendering his services to the said college and that he is entitled for regularization of his services and for payment of entire salary as per the scale of pay referred in his appointment order, the 1st petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that he is entitled to continue as a junior lecturer in Mathematics in the 3rd respondent College and also for a consequential direction for payment of pay and allowances. While admitting the writ petition on 26.02.1998, this Court in WPMP.Nos.6112 and 6113 of 1998, directed the respondents to permit the 1st petitioner to function as Junior Lecturer in Mathematics at Anwar-ul-loom Junior College at Nampally, in which post he was appointed earlier, and to mark his attendance in the attendance register maintained in the 3rd respondent College. It was also further directed that the respondents shall pay the salary of the 1st petitioner from August, 1997 to February, 1998, and continue to pay the salary in future. Thereafter, seeking to vacate the said interim order, the 3rd respondent College moved vacate petition in W.V.M.P.No.1380 of 1998, along with its counter affidavit, denying the allegations made by the 1st petitioner and contending that it is a Muslim Minority Institute established and administered by the Anwar-ul-uloom Educational Association, Mallepally; that since the appointment of the 1st petitioner, as a junior lecturer in Mathematics to teach the students in Urdu medium, was purely on temporary basis, his services can be terminated without assigning any reasons or any prior notice; that as there were no students in Urdu medium, the services of the 1st petitioner had become surplus and he voluntarily ceased to attend the college since August, 1997; that the post held by Dr.Masood Ali Khan has no bearing on the rights of the 1st petitioner; that the post held by the 1st petitioner is not admitted to grant-in-aid and, therefore, he is not entitled to any scale of pay. Since the 1st petitioner died during pendency of the writ petition, petitioners 2 and 3 came on record as his legal representatives, by order dated 22.01.2010 in W.P.M.P.No.29326 of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that despite the interim orders dated 26.02.1998 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.Nos.6112 and 6113 of 1998, which were subsequently made absolute on 15.12.1998 in W.V.M.P.No.1380 of 1998 filed by the 3rd respondent and attained finality in W.A.No.2276 of 1998 on 30.12.1998, the 1st petitioner was not paid any salary as per the directions of this Court. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the appointment of the 1st petitioner was subject to approval of the Board of Intermediate Education, and as his appointment was not approved against an aided vacancy, he was paid salary on consolidated basis every month till his death i.e., 15.11.2002 from the funds of the 3rd respondent’s Society and he was not entitled for regular pay scale and, therefore, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent has acted either arbitrarily or illegally. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the record and other material made available on record. The fact that the post of the 1st petitioner was not approved and that he was not appointed in aided vacancy cannot be disputed, in view of the disclosure of the contents of the very appointment order dated 24.12.1991 of the 1st petitioner and also the letter dated 05.02.1993 addressed by the Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, to the correspondent of the 3rd respondent College, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the 1st petitioner is entitled for the salary as per the scale of pay indicated in his appointment order. The fact that the 1st petitioner was paid his salary as per consolidated pay, which was increased from time to time, till the date of his death, is not disputed. However, since the 1st petitioner worked for more than ten years in the 3rd respondent College, his case can be considered for payment of death-cum-terminal benefits such as gratuity, provident fund etc, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider and pay the gratuity, provident fund and other amounts, payable to the 1st petitioner who died while in service on 15.11.2002, to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, if the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are aggrieved by such payment, they may make appropriate representation before the 3rd respondent, who thereupon shall dispose of the same as per law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 02.02.2010 v v