ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AANDE HYDERABAD Vs. S SRINIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard

(2.) Learned single Judge has set aside the order passed by the appellant solely on the ground that in spite of several adjournments granted to him in course of hearing of the writ petition, no specific rule or any other statutory provision was brought to his notice which required a period of qualifying service for being eligible for the invalidity pension. This fact has been recorded by the learned single Judge in his order and also that he himself looked into all the materials on record including the rules which were made available to him and found Rule 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short the Rules') providing for the invalid pension without prescribing any qualifying period of service. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two grounds viz., 1) that the claim, if any, of the petitioner is upon the Government of Andhra Pradesh and not upon the Accountant General i.e. the appellant herein and thus, the writ petition was fit to be dismissed for misjoinder of party and non joinder of necessary party and 2) in any case, learned single Judge has passed the order in ignorance of Rule 45 of the Rules in this behalf.

(3.) Whether there has been any such rule or not, me person who is the authority for the scrutiny of all the bills and claims coming against the Government of the State was expected to be responsible to the Court and produc e before the Court the relevant rules so that the Court was not misguided and a proper decision was taken by it. If any mistake has been committed by the learned Single Judge about it and only the second ground is raised on behalf of the appellant, the blame is entirely upon him and not upon any other person. By not responding to the orders of the Court and by not assisting the Court properly by filing counter-affidavit on the subject, the appellant has invited the impugned judgment. In any case, the effect of the rule cannot be seen directly in the appeal for the obvious reason that we do nothave any information on the record on behalf of the appellant that the Revised Pension Rules are applicable to the case of the Respondent-Writ petitioner. Objections as to defect of a party is always raised at the initial stages of the proceeding and unless the party who is not added is felt necessary by the Court, the Court legitimately proceeds to dispose of the proceedings in the presence of the parties before it. The State Government has not come in the picture in the instant proceedings. It was, however, the appellant who interfered with the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent by insisting that he was not eligible for the pension without ever-telling him that he was noteligible for the pension and when he came to the Court also, he withheld the information until the instant appeal before us. The order of the learned single Judge may not bind the Andhra Pradesh Government but shall surely bind the appellant. The appellant cannot now sit upon the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent and say that he is not eligible for the invalid its pension. We have chosen to take the above stand for the reason that there is absolutely no pleading on the record to introduce the rule of qualifying period of service which the learned counsel for the appellant has chosen to do before us. We, however, leave this question open to be decided in appropriate case but so far as the case of the respondent-writ petitioner is concerned, the appellant is bound by the directions of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.