IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.35924 of 1997 Between: G.Rambabu … Petitioner and A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.35924 of 1997 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.PERS/AM(A):SA:17102/79/II/97, dated 21.11.1997 of the 1st respondent, Managing Director of A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, (for short ‘the Corporation’) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional as it violates the principles of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also issue consequential direction to the 1st respondent to continue the petitioner into service. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner also filed W.P.M.P. No.42211 of 1997 wherein the petitioner sought for suspension of the impugned Proceedings dated 21.11.1997. Under the impugned Proceedings dated 21.11.1997, issued by the 1st respondent, terminated the services of the petitioner, who was on deputation as Project Director for DRDA, Krishna, Machilipatnam. This Court on 02.01.1998, while admitting the writ petition, passed interim suspension of the impugned Proceedings dated 21.11.1997 and the same was made absolute on 22.11.2000. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was continued in service and ultimately he was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year of 2008. Further, it is also submitted that as the writ petition is pending, the pensionary and other attendant benefits have not been finalized by the respondents. Therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to finalise the retiremental benefits of the petitioner. For the purpose to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition and also for considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, certain facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of the writ petition, needs to be taken note of, which are as under: The petitioner was a Marketing Officer in the 1st respondents Corporation having recruited as such in the year of 1979 and later on he was sent on deputation to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein, he was posted as Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) for the first time in the year of 1993. Since then, he was working on deputation with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, except for a short break of four months, during which period, he worked as Additional Private Secretary to the Minister of State in the Union Cabinet and at the relevant point of time, he was working as Project Officer, DRDA, Krishna District. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.282, Agriculture and Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated 08.07.1997 contemplating the voluntary retirement with exgratia benefits to the employees working in the 1st respondent’s Corporation. Consequently, the 1st respondent issued the circulars dated 01.09.1997, 09.09.1997 and 01.10.1997 calling for the option from the employees whose services have become redundant informing the decision of the Government to the employees to opt for voluntary retirement. But the petitioner has not received any communication and was under the impression that he was spared to the termination of the services or voluntary retirement scheme as he has been working as project Director, DRDA and that his services were sought to be continued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st respondent also issued the circular dated 18.10.1997 contemplating the last date for opting voluntary retirement on or before 27.10.1997, if the employees, who do not opt for the same on or before the relevant date, those employees services will be terminated, in accordance with the service regulation of the 1st respondent’s Corporation. The petitioner stated that he has not been served with any of the circulars. It is also stated in the affidavit that about three officers in the Agro Chemicals Divisions were also not opted for voluntary retirement scheme including the petitioner. On the ground that the petitioner had not opted for the voluntary retirement scheme within the time stipulated by the 1st respondent, issued the impugned proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned proceedings is in violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioner was on deputation of Government of Andhra Pradesh and was not in the actual employment of the 1st respondent. Therefore, neither the Government Orders issued by the Government nor the consequential circulars issued by the 1st respondent are within the knowledge of the petitioner. He further submitted that till he received the impugned proceedings of termination, he is not aware of any of the G.O. issued by the Government or the circulars issued by the 1st respondent. On the other hand, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that in addition to the Government G.O., which was published in the official gazette with regard to the various circulars issued by the 1st respondent Corporation, the same was notified and published in the newspapers like Eendadu. Therefore, it amounts to public notice and as such, the plea that is taken by the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the 1st respondent is untenable. It is also stated that the petitioner has intentionally avoided the various circulars issued to him and therefore, it is stated that the contention of the petitioner about non-service of the circulars dated 18.07.1997 is untenable and absolutely incorrect. Denying the averments made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a detailed reply stating that the averments made in the counter affidavit about avoiding the receipt of the circulars issued by the 1st respondent by the petitioner is incorrect. The facts that are required to be considered as to whether the relief sought for by the petitioner is need to be considered positively. Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent’s Corporation and he was on deputation at the relevant point of time when the Government has issued the G.O. contemplating the voluntary retirement scheme in the 1st respondent’s Corporation and consequent whereof, several employees were opted for voluntary retirement. The petitioner was on deputation to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and his contention is that he is not aware of the said scheme implemented by the 1st respondent’s Corporation consequent to the decision taken by the Government under the G.O. referred to above. The case of the petitioner is that he has not been received any of the circulars from the Corporation till he received the order of termination of his services. However, this Court, as early as on 02.01.1998 in W.P.M.P. No.42211 of 1997 granted the interim suspension of the impugned proceedings, by virtue of which, the petitioner stated to have been continued in service. It is also on record that on 22.02.2000, this Court made the interim suspension of the impugned proceedings as absolute and directed the writ petition to be posted for final hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the interim suspension passed by this Court, which was later on made absolute, the petitioner was continued in service and ultimately retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year of 2008. In that view of the matter, it is not desirable to go into further more details of the case with regard to the validity of the termination as such because the order of termination was suspended and the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till he attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, it is appropriate to set aside the order of termination and to direct the 1st respondent to finalise the retiremental benefits of the petitioner, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 19.08.2011 LSK