HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30520 of 2011 Dated 18-11-2011 Between: B.N.Sukumar. …Petitioner. And: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30520 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the salaries of the petitioner w.e.f. February, 2001 till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., in the year 2007- 08 as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice a n d violative of the Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salaries to the petitioner w.e.f February, 2001 till his retirement on attaining the age o f superannuation i.e., in the academic year 2007-08 (April) and also to pay the retirement benefits from the date of his retirement in pursuance of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No.9541 of 2007 on 6-9-2011. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner was appointed in Lutheran English Medium High School, Guntur in the year 1984 vide proceedings Rc.No.3517/A3/B5/96 dated 30-11-1996 in an unaided vacancy as Secondary Grade Teacher and subsequently, 5th respondent Management promoted him as School Assistant (Maths) in the year 1986. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.238 dated 27-5-1986 to sanction grant-in-aid to new schools. The 5th respondent management sent proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 to admit 35 posts into Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 1-4-1994 by issuing proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.323 Education dated 17-9-1994 and 18 posts were left without admitting into Grant-in-Aid and the post of the petitioner is one among those posts, which were not admitted into Grant-in-Aid. The petitioner is eligible to Grant-in-Aid. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.275 Finance and Planning (FW.SMPC) Department dated 14- 12-1995 imposing a restriction on filling up of the posts of all categories except with the prior permission of the Government in the Finance and Planning (Finance Wing) Department. Subsequently, the State Government issued Memo No.5-S/1491/451/SMPC/98 dated 3-8-1998 whereby the provisions contained the said G.O. were made applicable to the grant-in-aid schools. Questioning the said Memo dated 3-8-1998, one Kavitha More and five others were selected for appointment as teachers in L.M.S. High School, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad and they filed writ petition No.6380 of 1999 for grant of a declaration that the restriction imposed by the State Government is ultra vires the 1993 Rules. This Court on 28-4-1999 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to approve the selection of the petitioners. Several managements of the private aided schools also filed Writ Petition Nos.28770, 32362, 32384, 33195 and 35308 of 1998 questioning the G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14-12-1995 and memo dated 5-8-1998 on the ground that the same are ultra vires the 1993 Rules. This Court on 23-6-1999 allowed the said batch of writ petitions while referring to the order dated 28-4-1999 passed in W.P.No.6380 of 1999 and directed the Government to approve the selections made by the Selection committees of the respective private aided educational institutions for filling up the vacant posts. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 23-6-1999, the Government preferred Writ Appeal No.1426 of 1999 and batch and this Court dismissed the said batch writ appeals on 1-10-1999. In compliance to the directions of this Court, the respondent-State Government added Sub-Rule (2A) to Rule 12 of the 1993 Rules. Simultaneously, sub-rule (9) of Rule 12 was amended rendering appointments made in violation of Rule 12 as null and void. The aforesaid amendments were introduced vide G.O.Ms.No.76 Education (SE/PS-I) Department dated 2-11-1999. The said G.O. was challenged in W.P.No.11750 of 2000 and batch. This Court at the stage of admission suspended the operation of Government order and finally the Division Bench of this Court struck down the amendment as a whole by observing that the same is violative of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the Government also issued instructions vide Government Memo No.3916/526/SMPC/99 dated 1-5-2000, wherein it was mentioned that to fill up the vacancies in the aided schools, the clearance of the Finance and Planning Department is mandatory. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents as well as the Government and also the District Collector, Guntur requesting them to regularize or absorb his post into Grant-in-Aid and in pursuance of his repeated requests, the Government forwarded his representation to the 2nd and 3rd respondents and the 3rd respondent vide his Lr.Rc.No.5779/B5/2001 dated 4-4- 2003 was pleased to address the District Collector, Guntur and informed him that his name was figured at Sl.No.2 in proposals submitted to the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent for absorption of certain un-aided teachers working in the 5th respondent school. 5th respondent made a representation to the 4th respondent for absorption of certain un-aided approved posts into Grant-in-Aid, thereupon, the 4th respondent called for certain information vide Rc.No.5177/2000 dated 21-6-2000 and the 5th respondent school management submitted details as sought by the 4th respondent on 24.4.2000 and 20-7-2000. In turn, the 4th respondent forwarded proposals to the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.5177/B1/2000 dated 3-3-2001. In the said proceedings, his name was shown at Sl.No.2. The 2nd respondent called for certain additional information from the 4th and 5th respondents vide proceedings Rc.No.1071/D1-2/2001 dated 10-2-2001. As per the instructions of the government, the 2nd respondent forwarded the proposals to the Government for absorption of un=aided posts into Grant-in-Aid vide Rc.No.1071/D1-2/2001 dated 12.11.2001, wherein his name was shown at Sl.No.2 for absorption w.e.f. 18-2- 2001. But so far, the respondents did not take any action in this regard. As the petitioner requested the 5th respondent school management for his absorption of his post into Grant-in-Aid in the available vacancy arose due to promotion of one Solman Raju, the management bore grudge against him. Therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.13372 of 2003 seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not absorbing his services as B.Ed. Assistant in the existing vacancy. On 23-1-2006, this Court directed the 5th respondent to appear before this Court and on the said date, record was called for from the 5th respondent. Subsequently, the matter was posted for final hearing. Pending finalization of his writ petition, he was continued as School Assistant in the 5th respondent school till his attaining the age of superannuation. After issuance of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23-9-2002, the Government conducted review meeting held on 8-10- 2004 in which it was decided that no new posts of grant- in-aid will be created and the existing vacancies will also not be filled up. Various Management Schools approached this Court by filing batch of writ petitions questioning the applicability and validity of the said Memo dated 20-10-2004 and this Court allowed the said batch of writ petitions and held that the said memo was not applicable to schools, which are having prior permission for filling up of the vacancies. Aggrieved by the orders, the Government preferred Writ Appeal No.1578 of 2005 and batch. Finally, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ appeal and batch by judgment dated 26-12- 2006. Assailing the same, the Government preferred SLP No.9541 of 2007 and batch. Pending finalization of the said SLP, the government issued various G.Os. for filling up of the vacancies and admitted various un-aided schools into Grant-in Aid not withstanding the pendency of the SLP. Pending finalization of his writ petition No.13372 of 2003, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and ultimately, he retired from service by the end of academic year 2007-2008 i.e., April, 2008. 5th respondent management deposited Providend Fund and as of now, the petitioner is receiving only Rs.300/- per month towards interest on his Provident Fund. But till date, the 5th respondent did not pay his pension and other retirement benefits as per rules. The said Writ Petition No.13372 of 2003 was dismissed on 27-12-2010. In pursuance of the observations made by this Court in W.P.No.13372 of 2003, the petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 for settlement of his retirement benefits. So far, the respondents did not take any action in this regard. Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the SLP No.9541 of 2007 on 6-9-2011 with an observation that the memo in question was only on prospective basis. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, he is entitled for absorption of his post with all consequential benefits including the retirement benefits attached to post of School Assistant during the period he worked. In pursuance of the dismissal of the SLP No.9541 of 2007 on 6-9-2011 by the Honourable Supreme Court, the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent requesting to take necessary action and for release of retirement benefits by absorbing his post into Grant-in-Aid. On 24-1-2006, this Court rendered the judgment in W.P.No.22335 of 1996 wherein it was held that the lecturers in private colleges working in un-aided posts are entitled to the Government Scales. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the private management schools preferred W.A.No.930 of 2006 and the same was dismissed by orders dated 27-9-2006. The said orders became final. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for retirement benefits as per the Government Scales. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking redressal of the above grievances. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. After arguing the case at length, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the proposal is pending before the Government from 2001 onwards and though the petitioner is retired from service, no orders have been passed by the respondent authorities so far. Therefore, he seeks to direct the respondent- authorities to pay the arrears of salaries to the petitioner and also to pay his retirement benefits. A perusal of the affidavit goes to show that several representations are made to the District Collector, Guntur requesting them to regularize or absorb the post of the petitioner in Grant-in-aid, but no action was taken. Apart from that, though the proposal is pending before the Government from 2001 onwards and though the petitioner is retired from service, no orders have been passed by the respondent authorities so far. In the present facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 18-11-2011. Note: CC in one week. BO. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30520 of 2011 Dated 18-11-2011