THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 25978 of 2009 06-07-2010 BETWEEN; Bala Brahmanandam son of late Venkateswarlu ...Petitioner vs. The Government of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (VO) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.25978 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. By the order dated 23.04.2009 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal) in O.A.No.5386 of 2009, the application of the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.7365 of 2001 dated 20-02-2007 and to continue the writ petitioner-applicant as a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Gopalapuram Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, was rejected. This is the order assailed herein. Earlier the petitioner filed O.A.No.7365 of 2001 on the grievance that he was disengaged from the post of a VAO to which he was appointed under a scheme of “compassionate appointment”. During the pendency of that O.A, the post of VAO was abolished and Revenue and Panchayat functions were ssigned to a newly created post of “Panchayat Secretary”. The existing incumbents of the posts of VAO were absorbed as Panchayat Secretaries. Similar cases pertaining to disengagement of Panchayat Secretaries (on the ground that they were appointed on compassionate basis consequent on the death of relatives, who died after crossing the age of 60 years) was considered by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.6474 and 6520 of 2001. The Tribunal by the order dated 25-01-2006 following the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.P Tiwari [( 2003) 9 SCC 129] had directed the official respondents to continue the applicants therein as Panchayat Secretaries till they attain the age of superannuation; in view of the fact that they had continued as VAOs and thereafter as Panchayat Secretaries for considerable length of time. In its order O.A.Nos.6474 and 6520 of 2001, the Tribunal did not decide the entitlement to continue as Village Administrative Officers, those who were appointed contrary to the relevant statutory Rules namely the A.P Village Administrative Officers Service Rules,2000. On the basis of the order dated 25-01-2006 in O.A.Nos.6474 and 6520 of 2001, the earlier O.A. preferred by the writ petitioner i.e., O.A.No.7365 of 2001 was allowed and in terms of its earlier order (in OA Nos.6474 and 6520 of 2001). Consequently the petitioner was declared entitled to continue as a Panchayat Secretary. As the petitioner was not reinstated to duty as a Panchayat Secretary (he was disengaged when O.A.No.7365 of 2001 was earlier dismissed for default; the O.A. was subsequently restored to file and disposed of as already stated by the order dated 20-02-2007), the petitioner instead of seeking execution of the order in O.A.No.7365 of 2001 by an execution or a contempt application, filed a fresh application in O.A.No.5386 of 2009 seeking implementation of the direction in the earlier O.A.No.7365 of 2001. The petitioner also sought a consequent relief of a direction to the respondents to continue him as VAO. This O.A. was dismissed by the order impugned herein dated 23-04-2009. The Tribunal relying on a statement by the learned Government Pleader that the posts of VAO were abolished in the year 2001 and there were currently no such posts and therefore the order could not be implemented, rejected the application. From the litigative chronology mentioned above, it is clear that the initial order of the Tribunal in the earlier O.A.No.7365 of 2001 directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till his age of superannuation, in the light of its earlier order in similar circumstances, i.e., the order dated 25-01-2006 in OA Nos.6474 and 6520 of 2001. In the light of the earlier order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7365 of 2001 since he was similarly circumstanced. By the order dated 20-02-2007 this O.A was disposed of in terms of the earlier order dated 25-01-2006 “with similar directions as granted in O.A.Nos.6474 of 2001 and 6520 of 2001 dated 25-01-2006”. What the Tribunal had earlier directed is therefore clear and categorical and admits of no ambiguity. The Tribunal in O.A.No.7365 of 2001 directed that the petitioner be continued in service as a Panchayat Secretary. The error of the petitioner was in the drafting of the relief claimed in O.A.No.7365 of 2001. While he did seek implementation of the earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7365 of 2001, he erroneously sought continuance as VAO, a post which stood abolished in 2001. This incoherence in the plea was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal either by the petitioner’s counsel nor by the learned Government Pleader nor did the Tribunal itself look into the litigative chronology to identify the relief that the petitioner had earlier obtained. This mix up led to the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application. The Tribunal did not go into the question whether another O.A. was maintainable for execution of the order in O.A.7365 of 2001, when a specific remedy, of execution or contempt was available under the provisions of the A.P Administrative Tribunals Act,1985. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the Tribunal dated 23-04- 2005 in O.A 5386 of 2009 is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The matter is remanded to the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. It shall proceed to adjudicate upon the issues presented in this O.A de novo and pass a fresh order expeditiously on the maintainability of this O.A and if maintainable what relief if any could be granted. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 6th JULY 2010. TSNR