THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2939 OF 2001 DATED 16TH APRIL, 2010 BETWEEN M.Vijaya Mohan Rao … Petitioner and The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Law (Legislative Affairs & Justice) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. And Another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2939 OF 2001 ORDER: The petitioner, formerly a Special Public Prosecutor, challenges Memo No.34722/Cts.A.2./2000-1 dated 16.01.2001 issued by the Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs & Justice Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, whereby his request for payment of remuneration from 21.10.1998 to 12.08.2000 was rejected. He seeks a consequential direction for payment of the aforestated dues. The petitioner was appointed as an Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of Additional District Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, for a period of three years vide G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 13.02.1995. The appointment was extended thereafter by the District Collector under proceedings dated 26.02.1998 which was also ratified by the Government. The Additional District Sessions Court at Vizianagaram was designated as the Special Court to try cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act of 1989’). Under Section 15 of the Act of 1989, a Special Public Prosecutor has to be appointed for prosecuting such cases. It appears that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.256, Law (L.A.&J.Courts-A) Department, dated 13.12.1996 re-designating all the posts of Additional Public Prosecutors appointed in the designated Courts as Special Public Prosecutors for trying cases in the Special Courts under the Act of 1989. Accordingly, the post held by the petitioner was also re-designated and he discharged functions in both capacities. When there was a move to replace him, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.30215 of 1998 before this Court seeking a direction to the authorities to allow him to act as a Special Public Prosecutor in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.256 dated 13.12.1996. By virtue of the interim orders granted on 02.11.1998 in the said writ petition, the petitioner continued in office. Eventually, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 08.08.2000 on the ground that the term of three years, for which the petitioner had been appointed, had expired. The issue that arises for consideration presently is with regard to the payment of remuneration to the petitioner for the period 21.10.1998 to 12.08.2000 during which he worked as a Special Public Prosecutor. The Government rejected the request of the petitioner in this regard under the impugned Memo dated 16.01.2001. Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that having utilized the services of the petitioner during the said period, it was not open to the respondent authorities to deny him the remuneration which was due for the said period. In its counter, the Government submitted that after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, he made a representation on 07.09.2000 seeking payment of remuneration from 21.10.1998 to 12.08.2000. Though his term as a Special Public Prosecutor came to an end on 18.02.1998, he was permitted to continue pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. In so far as his claim for remuneration is concerned, the counter reflects the same reason quoted in the impugned Memo dated 16.01.2001, – that as the very writ petition filed by the petitioner for continuance beyond the period of three years was dismissed as infructuous, his request for payment of remuneration was also liable for rejection. It is not in dispute that the petitioner discharged the functions of a Special Public Prosecutor during the period 21.10.1998 to 12.08.2000, albeit by reason of the interim orders in the earlier writ petition. The earlier writ petition pertained to the continuance of the petitioner as a Special Public Prosecutor under the Act of 1989 and was eventually dismissed owing to the expiry of the three year term. The issue of payment of remuneration to the petitioner during the said period did not figure for consideration at all. That being so, the dismissal of that writ petition does not foreclose or extinguish the petitioner’s claim for remuneration for the period that he worked, as erroneously understood by the respondents. Having utilized the services of the petitioner, it is not open to the respondent authorities to claim such services gratis and deny payment of lawfully due remuneration to the petitioner. Except for stating that such payment was denied owing to the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the respondent authorities did not put forth any other contention to rebut the entitlement of the petitioner to such remuneration. The rejection of the petitioner’s request for remuneration for the period that he discharged functions as a Special Public Prosecutor is therefore not just and valid. There shall accordingly be a direction to the respondents to pay remuneration to the petitioner as per the terms of his appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor under the Act of 1989 for the period 21.10.1998 to 12.08.2000. The said payment shall be made within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 16TH APRIL, 2010. VGSR