PUSHPINDER KAUR Vs. GOVERNMENT ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner-Smt. Pushpinder Kaur during the subsistence of valid period by issuing G.O.Rt. No.1294 dated 21-8-2002 on the suggestion of the then Acting Chairman of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and also to declare paragraph No.9 of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 6-12-2000 as illegal, unjust, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside G.O.Ms.No.1294 dated 21-8-2002 and to declare paragraph No.9 of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 6-12-2000 is unconstitutional.

(2.) The facts in narrow compass are that the petitioner is an advocate practising since 8-4-1977 and on 27-12-2000 she was appointed a Government Pleader by G.O. Rt. No.1821 dated 26-12-2000, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, on linguistic minority in Education Department and on 4-12-2002 she was shifted to Medical and Health Department and her services were appreciated by various departments. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.Rt.No.1294 Law Department dt. 21-8-2002 terminating the engagement of the petitioner as Government Pleader and also directing the Administrator, Government Pleader's Office, High Court to pay one month's honorarium to the petitioner in lieu of one month's notice in compliance of Instruction 9 of the A.P. Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2000 (for short Service Instructions), which is assailed in this writ petition as illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It is averred that as an advocate and Government Pleader, the petitioner was a thorough professional and there was no dissatisfaction from any quarter, which is evident from the letter of the Secretary, Bar Association, A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Besides Education and Medical and Health Departments, the petitioner also represented Forest, Sericulture in her tenure as Government Pleader and her services were applauded by respective departments as is evident from the testimonials issued by the departments. In an attempt to curb the bribery, she reported the matter to the Government and action was initiated against the said person and the Medical and Health Department has appreciated her sincerity. While so, the petitioner was served with a copy of letter dated 3-7-2002 from the Advocate General's Office which was received from the then Acting Chairman, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, stating that the petitioner come to the court unprepared, unprepared to the cause list and response to the Bench was poor and used to depend on her Assistant Government Pleaders for her work. The petitioner submitted explanation to the said letter on 18-7-2002 denying the allegations stating that had she been unprepared either to the cause list or to the Tribunal, she would have been hauled up by the Bench or by the departments and thus, the allegations are baseless. It is further stated that without considering her explanation, the termination order was served.