THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.903 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GM,J) This Writ Petition by the State is filed seeking to quash the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby the Tribunal allowed O.A.No.1556 of 2004, filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are working as Executive Officers (Panchayat Secretaries) Grade-III in Rangareddy District, challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Rangareddy District dated 17.02.2004, repatriating them as Junior-Assistants-cum-Bill Collectors. Pursuant to orders issued by the Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, in Memo.No.21798.Mdl.II.2002-1 dated 11.06.2002, the District Collector, Rangreddy District, by order dated 17.02.2004, repatriated respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to their original posts of Junior Assistants-cum-Bill Collectors on the ground that in the Memo dated 11.06.2002, the Government rejected the proposal for posting them as Panchayat Secretaries, as there is no provision for posting of Junior Assistants/Junior Assistants-cum-Bill Collectors as Panchayat Secretaries. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenged the same before the Tribunal and for a declaration that they are entitled to continue as Executive Officers (Panchayat Secretaries) Special Category- III. The Tribunal set aside the order of the District Collector, by impugned order dated 31.03.2009, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. The case of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.1 to 4 were initially appointed as Bill Collectors irregularly on daily wages on a fixed pay by the Sarpanches of respective Gram Panchayats, who are not competent to make such appointments. Subsequently, however, they were appointed on a time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistants/ Bill Collectors of Gram Panchayats, meeting the expenditure of their salaries from Gram Panchayat funds. They were subsequently appointed as Panchayat Secretaries Category-III by proceedings of the District Collector dated 28.12.2007. The case of these respondents was, however, examined by the Government with reference to the orders dated 13.06.2003 passed in O.A.No.4123 of 2003 and it was found that since their services were non-provincialised, they are not entitled to hold the posts of Panchayat Secretaries and accordingly Memo dated 11.06.2002 was issued. Though the services of all full time employees working in Gram Panchayat in time scale are provincialised by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.169, (Estt. VIII) dated 29.03.1981 with immediate effect, since respondent Nos.1 to 4 were appointed subsequently i.e. on 17.01.1984, 12.10.1986, 01.05.1993 and 02.07.1981 respectively and pursuant to the Memo dated 11.06.2002, they were repatriated to their original posts from the posts of Panchayat Secretaries, by proceedings dated 17.02.2004 of the District Collector. However, the Tribunal, on application made by respondent Nos.1 to 4, wrongfully set aside the proceedings dated 17.02.2004. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 29.03.1981, the services of all the posts in the Gram Panchayats in the State existing as on that date were provincialised, therefore, though respondent Nos.1 to 3 were appointed as Bills Collectors on daily wage basis subsequently, their services shall also be treated as provincialised, and that the Tribunal following its earlier decision dated 22.01.2009 in O.A.No.2638 of 2008, which had become final, rightly allowed the O.A.No.1556 of 2004, by order dated 30.03.2009 and as such no interference is warranted. The learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for the petitioners submits that since respondent Nos.1 to 4 were appointed as Bill Collectors, there is no channel of promotion and that the Tribunal has no power to grant the reliefs claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, since the District Collectors were delegated with powers under G.O.Ms.No.176 dated 23.03.1988. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, reiterating the counter averments, contended that since their services were provincialised, the Tribunal rightly allowed the O.A setting aside the proceedings of the District Collector dated 17.12.2004. He further submitted that subsequent to the passing of the impugned orders by the Tribunal, the Government issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.205 dated 19.02.2010 implementing the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.S.No.2638 of 2008 dated 22.01.2009 and as such respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to the relief granted by the Tribunal. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the services of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their respective Gram Panchayats are deemed to be provincialised and whether they are entitled to be continued as Panchayat Secretaries Grade-III? From a perusal of the record, it may be noted that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.169 (Estt.VIII) dated 29.03.1981 issued orders to the effect that the services of all the Grampanchayat full time employees working in time scales of pay in the state as mentioned in the annexure to the Government Order be provincialised with immediate effect. The annexure includes the posts of Clerk-cum-Bill Collectors and Bill-Collectors, to which respondent Nos. 1 to 4 belong. Subsequently, Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.176, dated 23.03.1988 delegating powers to the District Collectors for sanction/creation/upgradation/conversion of posts in non-notified Gram Panchayats. There is no dispute that though respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were initially appointed on daily wage basis by the Sarpanches, subsequently they were appointed in time scales of pay by the District Collector, obviously, in the light of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.176 dated 23.03.1988. Therefore, even though they were appointed subsequent to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 29.03.1981 wherein the services of all the full time employees in time scales of pay working in the Gram Panchayats were provincialised, their services are to be treated as provincialised, particularly in the light of delegation of powers conferred on the District Collectors. We find force in the submission of respondent Nos.1 to 4 that though they were appointed on daily wage basis by the Sarpanches, they were appointed in clear vacancies, which have been provincialised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 29.03.1981 and in view of the orders of the District Collector according regular time scale of pay to them in the light of delegation of powers issued in G.O.Ms.No.176 dated 23.03.1988. Now, it is to be seen whether the continuance of respondent Nos.1 to 4 as Panchayat Secretaries is proper. It may be noted that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.369, dated 12.12.2001 issued orders regarding creation of the post of Panchayat Secretaries combining the Revenue and Panchayat functions in non-notified Gram Panchayats. From para 9 of the said G.O., it is clear that the post of Panchayat Secretary in non-notified Gram Panchayats will be filled up by redeployment of (i) Village Development Officer, Grade –I, (ii) Village Development Officer, Grade-II, (iii) Village Development Officer, Grade-III and Junior Assistants-cum-Bill Collectors/Junior Assistants working in non-notified Gram Panchayats in sanctioned provincialised posts with regular time scale and are entitled to draw their salaries from Treasury etc. There is no dispute that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 at the time of their appointment as Panchayat Secretaries are working either as Junior Assistants or Bill Collectors in a regular time scale of pay. Therefore, their appointment as Panchayat Secretaries cannot be said to be illegal. At this stage, it is relevant note that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.205 dated 19.02.2010 implementing the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2638 of 2008 dated 22.01.2009, which is not disputed at the Bar. The only objection made in Memo dated 11.06.2002 is that Junior Assistants/Junior Assistants-cum-Bill Collectors etc. working in non-provincialised posts are not to be posted as Panchayat Secretaries. Since respondent Nos.1 to 4 are to be treated as persons appointed in provincialised posts, they are entitled to be continued as Panchayat Secretaries. Therefore, we are of the view that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to the relief sought and the Tribunal has rightly granted the relief. However, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not right in observing in the order that all the posts of the Gram Panchayats have been provincialised. In the last para of the order dated 30.03.2009, the Tribunal observed as under: “As the applicants have been granted time scale by the District Collector in the category of Bill Collectors, they have to be treated as provincialised employees and in view of such circumstances the appointments made s Panchayat Secretaries are valid an cancellation of the same has to be held as arbitrary and illegal as all the posts of the Gram Panchayats have been provincialised in view of the orders of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 29.03.1981. In view of the above, the impugned orders issued by the District Collector, Rangareddy District (PW), vide proceedings Nos.A2/1507/2002 dated 17.2.2004 are set aside and the O.A. is allowed. No costs.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the material on record and having regard to the powers conferred on the District Collectors in G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 29.03.1981, we are of the view that the order of provincialisation of the posts in Gram Panchayats shall be confined to the posts as specified in the annexure to G.O.Ms.No.169 only. Accordingly, this Court clarifies that the provincial order in G.O.Ms.No.169 dated 29.03.1981 shall be confined to the posts specified therein and it shall not be treated as precedent. Accordingly, we direct that the words “as all the posts of the Gram Panchayats have been provincialised” occurring in the last para of the impugned order of the Tribunal shall stand deleted and the same be substituted with the words “as the posts of the Gram Panchayats specified in the annexure have been provincialised”. Subject to the above modification, the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ 25th March, 2010 G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J GHN