HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos. 12215, 12226, 12241, 12257 AND 12794 OF 2007 Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November, Two Thousand and Ten Between V.Raja Mouli Petitioner in WP No. 12215 of 2007 K.Chandra Sekhar Petitioner in WP No. 12226 of 2007 K.Shiva Prasad Petitioner in WP No. 12241 of 2007 K.Shankaraiah Petitioner in WP No. 12257 of 2007 G.Ramanatham Petitioner in WP No. 12794 of 2007 AND Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar and others Respondents in all the W.Ps. COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in this batch of cases are non- teaching staff working in Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University. They were extended special pay quantified at 10% of their basic pay under the nomenclature of ‘farm allowance’ sanctioned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under GO Ms. No. 76, Finance & Planning (PWTA), dated 25.8.1987, which was adopted by the University. This allowance was payable to those non- teaching employees who were working in farms/working places located 8 KMs. away from the municipal town limits. While so, by way of the impugned proceedings dated 28.7.1997, the University extended the benefit of GO (P) No. 341, Finance & Planning PFW.PC.I) Department, dated 30.9.1994, to its employees in respect of revised house rent allowance @ 12.5%. As per the said G.O., the employees working in the offices and institutions situated within 8 KMs. from the periphery of the certified towns would also be eligible for the benefit. This relief was also extended to those employees of the University who were working at Palasa, which is situated within 8 KMs. of Jagtial municipal town. Having stated so, the University surprisingly went on to inform the staff drawing farm allowance that they were not eligible for the same, as Palasa is within 8 KMs. of the municipal limits of Jagtial town. The University further directed that the farm allowance may be regulated accordingly from 1.9.1994. This proceeding was issued in the year 1997 and the effect thereof was that the non-teaching staff, which was adversely affected by the same, were expected to surrender the farm allowance drawn by them from 1.9.1994 upto the date of issuance of the proceedings. It appears that in the first instance, the union representing the interest of the affected non-teaching employees of the University filed W.P. No. 19135 of 1997 before this court, wherein stay orders were granted. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 14.3.2007 on the ground that the union could not espouse the individual causes of the employees. Pursuant thereto, the affected non-teaching staff individually filed the present writ petitions. This court, by interlocutory orders passed in these cases, granted stay of recovery of the farm allowance paid to the petitioners from 1.9.1994. Heard Sri A.Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases, and Sri T.Durga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University. Though the matters are coming up on the vacate stay applications filed by the Respondent University, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal with the consent of the counsel. It is the case of the respondent University that under GO Ms. No. 76 dated 25.8.1987, certain conditions were imposed for availing farm allowance. The conditions were that the farm/working place of the claimants of such allowance should be beyond 8 KMs. from the nearest municipal town, as certified by the R & B authorities and secondly, the Head of the University’s Research Station should certify that the staff were also staying 8 KMs. away from the municipal limits. Admittedly, this allowance was paid to the petitioners since 1986, presumably after verifying their eligibility in terms of the conditions stated supra. While so, GO (P) No. 341 dated 30.9.1994 was adopted by the Respondent University which allowed the benefit of enhanced House Rent Allowance @ 12.5% to not only the employees working in the municipal towns but also those working in the villages falling within 8 KMs. from the periphery of the municipal town limits. Pertinent to note, the emphasis in this GO is upon the location of the village in terms of the same being within 8 KMs. from the municipal town limits. On the other hand, in GO Ms. No. 76 dated 28.5.1987 the emphasis was upon the location of the farm/working place being beyond 8 KMs. from the municipal town limits. Mere location of the village within the stipulated distance would not automatically mean that the farm/working place would also be within the same distance. The respondent University seems to have lost sight of this aspect while extending the benefit of GO (P) No. 341 dated 30.9.1994 to its employees at Palasa while simultaneously curtailing their eligibility to avail farm allowance. The two G.Os. operated in separate spheres. In the event the farm/working place fell within the restricted distance of 8 KMs. from the municipal town limits, there would be overlapping between the two G.Os. thereby disentitling such an employee from availing the benefit of both. Such an employee would be entitled only to the benefit of GO (P) No. 341 dated 30.9.1994 and not to the relief of farm allowance under GO Ms.No. 76 dated 28.6.1987. Ignoring this aspect, the respondent University baldly stated that as Palasa village falls within the stipulated distance of 8 KMs. from the municipal town limits of Jagtial, the non-teaching employees there would not be entitled to farm allowance. No enquiry was made as to whether the farms in which such employees were working fall within 8 KMs. from the municipal town limits. It is the case of Sri A.Mahadev, learned counsel, that his clients were working in farms/working places situated beyond 8 KMs. from the municipal town limits of Jagtial. Pertinent to note, the petitioners were not even put on notice prior to the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 28.7.1997. This lapse constitutes a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The prejudice caused to the petitioners by the unilateral and uninformed decision taken by the respondent University is manifest, as they were subjected to recovery of the allowance paid to them for nearly three years. Thus, for reasons more than one, the impugned proceedings dated 28.7.1997 issued by the respondent university are unsustainable. Bereft of application of mind, the said proceedings also violate the principle of audi alteram partem. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 28.7.1997. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar November 24, 2010 MAS