THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1460 OF 2005 DATED 20TH OCTOBER, 2011 BETWEEN The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. …Appellants And C.G.Deiva Sahavasam and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1460 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.19698 of 2001 whereby the proceedings dated 19.07.2000 and 25.10.2000 issued by the first respondent in the writ petition, who is the first appellant herein, were set aside and the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents therein to pay salary and all other benefits to the writ petitioners as per their entitlement under law for the period 08.02.1996 to 08.03.1998 within a timeframe. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners were working as School Assistants in St.Thomas (SPG) Boys High School, Secunderabad, having been initially appointed on 23.06.1972 and 15.06.1967 respectively. In view of certain disputes in the fifth respondent management, one Pakiadas, who was claiming to be the Executive Secretary of the Society forcibly, took charge as a Correspondent. It was ultimately held that the said Pakiadas was neither authorized nor had any power or control over the management of the School. While so, orders were issued by the said Pakiadas on 08.02.1996 transferring the writ petitioners from the said School and they were said to have been relieved from the service of the School. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations to the fourth and fifth respondents in this regard. Later, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, the third respondent, issued proceedings requesting the fourth respondent and the Deputy Educational Officer to allow the writ petitioners to discharge their duties. Thereafter, the writ petitioners joined duty on 09.03.1998. The fifth respondent then requested the first respondent to release back wages to the petitioners for the period in question. Under the proceedings dated 19.07.2000, the said request was considered and rejected. Thereafter, the review petition filed on 24.07.2000 by the writ petitioners also ended in rejection on 25.10.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition was filed. It was the case of respondents 1 to 4 that the first respondent, on the basis of ‘no work, no pay’, rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitions for release of back wages from 08.02.1996 to 08.03.1998 as they were absent from duty during the said period. It was their further case that as the said Pakiadas who issued the transfer orders was no longer in the service of the School and was already transferred to another institution, the contention that the said Pakiadas had no power and authority to issue the transfer orders is not sustainable for claiming salary for the period in question. Considering the rival contentions and the material placed on record, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition under the impugned order. Hence, the writ appeal. Heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education for the appellants/respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition and Sri AKA Venkataramana, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners. The learned Government Pleader for School Education submitted that the writ petitioners, on receiving the transfer orders, neither reported at the place where they were transferred nor did they work in the School from which they were sought to be transferred during the period 08.02.1996 to 08.03.1998. He further submitted that the first respondent in his Memos dated 19.07.2000 and 25.10.2000 had considered the relevant aspects and given cogent reasons for rejecting the claim for payment of back wages to the writ petitioners during the period in question. He contended that the learned single Judge failed to consider these aspects and erroneously allowed the writ petition. He therefore sought that the writ appeal be allowed. Per contra, Sri AKA Venkataramana, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, submitted that the transfer orders issued by Pakiadas, who had no authority to do so, were bad in law and could not be acted upon. He contended that the respondents, instead of initiating action against the concerned including Pakiadas, dismissed the claim of the writ petitioners for payment of back wages for the period in question. The learned single Judge considered these aspects in the right perspective and passed the impugned order which does not warrant interference in this appeal. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the material placed on record. In the impugned order, the learned Judge while allowing the writ petition observed thus: “……… It is not the case of respondents that the petitioners themselves voluntarily did not attend the duty nor responsible for any such absence. On the face of it, absence of the petitioners is only attributed to the orders passed by the said Pakiadas, a non-entity. In view of the same, it can not be said that the petitioners are responsible for any such illegal actions, which have been set aside subsequently. Necessary corollary is that the petitioners would be entitled to all such benefits under law, including salary, etc.” In the process, while placing reliance on an unreported Judgment dated 30.11.2004 of this Court passed in W.P.No.21259 of 1996, it was further observed thus: “In an unreported decision passed in W.P. No. 21259 of 1996 on 30.11.2004, this court, by taking note of the fact that order of transfer having been set aside, held that it no longer subsists and it amounts to the conclusion that there is no such order of transfer and the employee continues to be in service. In view of the same, it has to be held that the petitioners’ absence in the above mentioned period, can not be attributed to them and they are entitled to all the service benefits including salary, etc. in the said period.” It is therefore clear from the record that Pakiadas who had issued orders transferring the writ petitioners on 08.02.1996 had no authority or power to do so. Once that is established on facts, any order passed by him had no validity in the eye of law. The learned single Judge discussed the matter in detail, rightly considered the relevant aspects of the matter in the proper perspective and ultimately allowed the writ petition. We do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the appellants/respondent 1 to 4 in the writ petition to recover subject the amount from the fifth respondent management of the School in accordance with law. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 20TH OCTOBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS