R.V.Ramanamurthy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27372 OF 2018 DATED :06.08.2018 Between :

R.V.Ramanamurthy, S/o.Sambamurthy, Aged 55 yrs, Lecturer in Chemistry, A.V.N.College, Visakhapatnam, A.P.

..

Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District & others.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27372 OF 2018 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for Higher Education.

2.

Petitioner initially worked as lecturer on Part time basis in an unaided post in the 4th respondent-College. By the order dated 04.08.2000 of the Commissioner, consequent to the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.328 dated 15.10.1997 petitioner was directed to be regularized and to admit him into grant-in-aid post with effect from the date of issue of the said order. Thus, in terms of the said order, petitioner is entitled to be considered as regular lecturer working in grant-in-aid post with effect from the said date. While so, petitioner now makes representation dated 20.02.2018 requesting to recommend to compute unaided service to regularize for future benefits i.e., pensionary benefits.

In other words for the first time, in February, 2018 petitioner seeks to make a grievance for computation of the past service for other benefits in the aided post. As noted above, the order of regularization itself clearly stipulates that petitioner is appointed to the aided post from that date and past benefits were not granted to him. Petitioner has not challenged the conditions imposed in the said order and accepted the said proceedings and continued in service all along and makes a representation for the first time only in February, 2018 and alleging inaction on the said representation this writ petition is filed.

3.

As the proceedings dated 04.08.2000 has become final and in terms thereof the regularization was granted only from the date of the said order, petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Merely because a representation is made no direction can be issued to consider the said representation in the teeth of order granting regularization on 04.08.2000. The writ petition merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed. 4.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 6th August, 2018 Rds