GOVERNMENT ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M NAGESHWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the State represented by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad, and other officers, against the order dated 14-11-2006 passed in OA No. 4908 of 2005 with VMA No. 822 of 2005 by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts stated are:- The applicant-respondent herein was originally appointed and was working as Home Guard in Home Department at Hyderabad City. It is stated that the applicant made representation dated 28-10-2003 to the Government requesting to appoint him as Attender/Sweeper/Watchman in relaxation of rules as a special case in Home Department. The 1st petitioner-Principal Secretary, Home Department, acting on the representation, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 51, Home (OP-1) Department, dated 13-2-2004 and appointed him as Attender in Home Department, Secretariat, on temporary basis under Rule 10(a) of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, in the scale of pay of Rs. 2650-50-2750-60-3050-80-3450-100-3950-120-4550-150-4850/- in relaxation of rules as a special case and the applicant joined duty with effect from 16-2-2004. That in the said G.O.Ms. No. 51, dated 13-2-2004, it was mentioned that his appointment was purely temporary and is liable to be terminated at any time without any notice and the said order cannot be quoted as precedent in future.

(3.) It is stated that pursuant to his appointment, as the applicant was not paid salary attached to the post of Attender, the applicant filed O.A. No. 3617 of 2005 seeking a direction to the authorities to release the salary attached to the post of Attender. Pursuant to the filing of O.A. No. 3617 of 2005, the 1st petitioner-Principal Secretary passed G.O.Ms. No. 174, Home (O.P-I) Department, dated 22-8-2005 cancelling his appointment as Attender in the Home Department and restored him to his original post of Home Guard. In the present OA, the said proceedings issued in G.O.Ms. No. 174, dated 22-8-2006 were called in question by the applicant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the O.A and the connected O.A No. 3617 of 2005, by observing that the provisions Act 2 of 1994 are not applicable to the case of the applicant as he was appointed by the competent authority and accordingly directed authorities to pay salary to the post attached to which the applicant was appointed pursuant to the orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 51, dated 13-2-2004. Assailing the said order, the State has filed this writ petition.