Mercy Cleoni Bhagya Devi v. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 10254 OF 2021 Between:
Age. 73 years , Occ. S A, Rtd, Colony,Adarshanagar, Road no 2, Mercy Cleoni Bhagya Devi, D/o.Joshva, R/O. R.No.18-97l52,Plot No.40, Rowa Peeaadiguda, Hyderabad,Telangana.
...PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Telangana State,Hyderabad.
The District Educational Officer, Karimnagar District. The CorrespondenU Secretary, Ghandhi Centurian TM High School, Karimnagar District'
...RESP.NDENTS 1.
2.
r) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent authorities with regard to not reckoning the unaided service rendered by the petitioners w.e.f. 01/08/1 974 to 01/08/1989 respectively for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and Automatic Advancement Scheme, in terms of Judgment passed in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and batch dated 2310812017 by declaring the inaction is illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and revise the Pay of the Writ Petitioner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to reckon the unaided service of the petitioner with effect from w.e.f. 01-08-1974 to 01-09-1989 for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme and Automatic Advancement Scheme in pursuant to the Judgment rendered in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and batch dated 23.08.2017 and revise the pay of the Writ Petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. V. SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.'t to 3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4:--- The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ,/ W.P.No.10254 of 2021 / ORDER:
Vhen the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that rhe issue involved in this u'rit petition is squarely covered by the common order dated 23.08.2077 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and batch.
Following the common order dated 23,08.2017 in W.P.No.3460 of 2070 and batch, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous peritions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSITANT REGIST R //TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER To,1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad.
3. The District Educational Officer, Karimnagar District.
4. The CorrespondenV Secretary, Ghandhi Centurian TM High School, Karimnagar District.
5. One CC to Sri P. V. Sai Krishna, Advocate [OPUC]
6. Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
7. Two CD Copies
8. One Spare Copy (A long with a copy of order dt:2310812017 in W.P.No.3460 of 2010 and Batch) SM anv j--
HIGH COURT DATED:29/06/2021
ORDER
WP.No.10254 of 2021 € r s t + c k -) o v o -\ 2l L U J { .+ * * 's.sparct99 =-4- -/, L DISPOSING OF THE WP.
WITHOUT COSTS.
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DDVI Writ Petition Nos.346O arad,3429 of2O1O, 27AtO of 2OO7 and 11O7, 2927, 14949 and 23884 of2OO8 Common Order: (Per the Hon'ble Th€ Actlng Chief Justicc RsmeEh Ranganethan) In all these writ petitions, the constitutional vaJidity of the Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2005 (hereinafter called "the 2005 Act"), especially re-introducing Sub-Section (2) of Section 1, Section 3 and Sections 4(1) and a(2), is questioned as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, contrary to the undertaking given before this Court in W.P. No. 3849 of 2001 and batch, and to declare that the petitioners are entitled for release of the revised Pay Scales, 2005 in terms of the proceedings dated 16.12.
2005 and 3L.l2.2OOS issued by the District Educational Officer, Nalgonda. Before the 2OO5 Act was enacted and brought into force with effect from 29.1O.2OO5, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh had issued the A.P. Private Educational Staff (Regulation of Pay) Ordinance No. 3 of 2005 (hereinafter called "the 2005 Ordinance"). The said Ordinance stood repealed by Section 7 of the 2005 Act. The validity of the 2005 Ordinance was the subject matter of challenge in Y. Sidda Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Othersl and a Division Bench of this Court, while upholding the vires of Section 3 of the 2OO5 Ordinance, declared Section 4(1) of the 2005 Ordinance unconstitutional, and as being irrational and arbitrary.
the 2OO5 Ordinance dealt with the aspect of pension, the rest of the ordinance was unconstitutional. In effect, the validity of the 2005 Ordinance, in so far as it related to pension, was upheld and the rest of the 2005 Ordinance was declared unconstitutional' Both the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana, would fairly state that the 2005 Act is a verbatim extract of the 2005 Ordinance. If that be so, the very sarne reasons which weighed with the Division Bench in declaring the 2005 Ordinance unconstitutional, except in so far as it dealt with the aspect of pension, must be applied with respect to the vires of the 2005 Act also. Following the law declared by the Division Bench in Y. Sidda Reddyt, the 2OO5 Act, except in so far as it dealt with the aspect of pension, is also declared to be unconstitutional. The validity of the 2005 Act, in so far as it dealt with the aspect of pension, is upheld.
All the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of' Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ} (.1, uwIl DEVI, Jl 23.d August, 2017 pnb