IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21497 of 2008 Between: K. Ravindranath S/o. Kotaiah R/o. Fullerpet, Podili (M) Prakasam District, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 The District Collector & Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3 The Chief Executive Officer, O/o. Zilla Parishad Prakasam District, Ongole. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer (Inquiry Officer) Markapur Division, Prakasam District, Ongole. (Respondents No. 2 to 4 not necessary parties) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the the proceedings No. 238/A1/99 dt. 22-6-2004 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional violating the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same, including the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 3763/2004 dt. 22-6-2006 and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith treat the period from 2-11- 99 to 7-6-2001 as compulsory wait and further direct the Respondents to pay his terminal benefits after regularising his period of compulsory wait with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO :21497 of 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 22.6.2006 passed in O. A. No. 3763 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting the case of the petitioner holding that he has not obeyed the posting orders dated 12.11.1999 and he is not entitled to seek the period from 2.11.1999 to 7.6.2001 as ‘compulsory wait’. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner, while working as Mandal Educational Officer and also as in-charge of Mandal Parishad Development Officer at Marripudi, was surrendered to the Collector on 2nd November, 1999, vide proceedings in Rc.No.238/A1/99 dated 1.11.1999 for fresh posting orders on the ground that did not pay the salaries to one Mandal Literacy Organizer. Aggrieved by the said surrender orders, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7884 of 1999 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while admitting the O.A. granted interim stay of the impugned proceedings therein on 31.12.1999. Thereafter, he made several representations requesting the authorities to implement the orders of the Tribunal dated 31.12.1999, but the respondents have not promoted the petitioner as regular Mandal Educational Officer, and his juniors were promoted in the counselling held on 8.5.2000 and he was not allowed to participate in the process of counselling. As the orders of the Tribunal were not implemented, he filed C.A.No.191 of 2000. However, the Tribunal heard the O.A. along with the C.A. and closed the O.A. with a direction to the petitioner to work as Head Master only on promotion. In spite of this, the respondents did not promote him as Head Master which led to filing of several representations before the authorities and he was also constrained to file another O.A.No.3396 of 2001 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by interim orders dated 23.5.2001 directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein to issue posting orders to the petitioner, to the post, which he is eligible within two weeks and a further direction to call him for counselling scheduled to be held on 25.12.2001 and 30.5.2001. In pursuance of the interim orders, he was posted as Mandal Educational Officer at V.V.Palem, Prakasam District. He joined on 11.6.2001 at V.V.Palem. The petitioner continued in the said post till 16.10.2001 and transferred to Markapur Mandal by order of the Regional Joint Director and joined on 17.10.2001 and on 30.6.2003 retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The respondents in their counter stated that since the petitioner, while working as Mandal Educational Officer, had not paid the salaries to one Mandal Literacy Organizer of Marripudi, the matter was brought to the notice of the Collector, and the petitioner was directed to report before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ongole for reposting orders on 1.11.1999. The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Ongole issued posting orders to the petitioner as B.Ed School Assistant to Zilla Parishad High School, Yachavaram in proceedings Rc.No.D1/8887/99 dated 12.11.1999. Aggrieved by the orders dated 1.11.1999, he had filed O.A.No.7884 of 1999. The factum of granting of stay by the Tribunal is not disputed by the respondents. In fact, the petitioner sought for posting as Mandal Educational Officer at Marripudi, which was rejected vide orders dated 21.12.1999 by the District Educational Officer, Ongole. The petitioner without joining in the post, has filed the C.A.No.191 of 2000 in O.A.No.7884 of 1999. However, the O.As filed by the petitioner along with the C.A. were dismissed by the Tribunal. The respondents have given posting orders to the petitioner in time and he is not entitled for treating the period as compulsory wait. In fact, at the time of surrendering the petitioner to Z.P., he was posted as B.Ed Assistant and the respondents have not committed any mistake in not giving him the posting orders. Therefore, a decision has been taken to treat the entire period as ‘not on duty’. 4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the petitioner was given posting orders and he has not obeyed the posting orders and therefore, he is not entitled to seek the period from 2.11.1999 to 7.6.2001 as ‘compulsory wait’ for posting and accordingly, dismissed the O.A. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that once the order passed by the authorities dated 1.11.1999 was stayed by the Tribunal through interim orders and the respondents have not filed any vacate stay petition till disposal of the O.A., the stay order dated 31.12.1999 remained in operation and when once the order is stayed by the Tribunal, he is entitled to treat the period as ‘compulsory wait’ and the Tribunal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, erroneously dismissed the O.A. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the order of surrender was passed on 1.11.1999 and he was relieved on 2.11.1999 by giving posting order to join as School Assistant. But, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was relieved on 2.11.1999 and approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.7884 of 1999 and obtained interim order on 31.12.1999. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the period from 02.11.1999 to 07-06-2001 as ‘compulsory wait’ and the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. 8. It is to be seen that the petitioner was surrendered vide proceedings dated 1.11.1999 on the ground that salaries were not paid to one Mandal Literacy Organizer and the petitioner was relieved on 2.11.1999 from the post of Mandal Educational officer and he was posted as School Assistant, Zilla Parishad High School, Yachavaram as per proceedings in Rc.No.D1/8887/99 dated 12.11.1999 and the petitioner did not obey the above orders. The petitioner filed the applications before the Tribunal after about one month and the Tribunal granted interim stay on 31.12.1999. Since the petitioner did not join duty in spite of posting orders and he filed O.A.No.7884 of 1999 and obtained interim orders, his claim was rightly rejected by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3763 of 2004 on the ground that the petitioner did not obey the orders of the authorities. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 29-09-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}