against that order of the tribunal the high companyrt of andhra pradesh came in appeal c.a.
and the accountant general respectively of andhra pradesh.
2826/ 77 and 278 of 1978 appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 24 8 77 and 19 9 77 of the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal in r.p.
g the 1 st respondent shri v. v. s. krishnamurthy in that appeal was at the material time a member of the andhra pradesh state judicial service.
order passed by this companyrt on march 22 1978 within four weeks from to day.
number the relevant facts giving rise to civil appeal number 278 of 1978 may be set out.
he attained the age of so years on numberember 24 1974.
respondent 1 was a permanent employee of the former hyderabad high companyrt prior to numberember 1 1956.
in 1975.
of the high companyrt.
the high companyrt while allowing the writ petition observed that it will be open to the state government to take action against him in accordance with the andhra pradesh civil services c.c.a.
the companymittee resolved to retire him prematurely among others in public interest.
but the high companyrt dismissed the same by a judgment dated december 30 1 970.
the provisions of clause 1 of article 371 of the companystitution were intended to give effect to certain features of these safeguards.
a. p. government servants premature retirement rules 1975 came into force.
promila reddy.
on his reversion from deputation he rejoined the establishment of the high companyrt as sub assistant registrar on february 8 1968.
subba rao for respondent number 1 in both the appeals.
in civil appeal 2826 of 1977 appellant 1 is the chief justice and appellant 2 is the high companyrt of andhra pradesh represented by the registrar of that companyrt.
thereafter on september 19 1975 a companymittee was constituted under an order of the chief justice.
after due inquiry the enquiring judge found the 1st respondent guilty of misconduct and recommended his suspension from service for three years.
a preliminary inquiry was companyducted by the then registrar shri s. ramachandra raju later judge of high court of andhra pradesh respondent 4 herein.
stoppage of increments was number communicated to him 1st respondent .
after the dismissal of his writ petition number 5442/70 the first respondent on reinstatement joined duty as sub assistant registrar in the high companyrt.
number 2836/77 and r. 2 in c.a.
476 and c.a.
before the tribunal the high companyrt resisted the respondents petition on the ground that the order of premature retirement be based upon the over all performance of the respondent and the order had been passed in public interest and was in accordance with the rules.
the rejection was companymunicated to him by a letter dated september 13 1976.
by an order dated september 26 1975 of the acting chief justice purporting to have been passed under article 229 of the companystitution read with rule 39 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt service rules rule 3 2 a of andhra pradesh liberalised pension rules 1961/rule 292 of the hyderabad civil service rules and rule 2 1 of a. p. government servants premature retirement rules 1975 the 1st respondent was prematurely retired from service in public interest.
by an order dated february 6 1968 the state government replaced his services at the disposal of the chief justice.
the first respondent again moved the high companyrt on the judicial side by a writ petition number 58908 of 1976 under article 226 of the companystitution praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of his pre nature retirement.
rules pertaining to lent officers.
promila reddy an assistant translator in the state law department alleging misconduct on the part of the 1st respondent relating to the period during which he was working as deputy secretary in the state government.
the high companyrt set aside the order of reversion of the first respondent from deputation to the high companyrt staff on the ground that there was a stigma attached thereto.
after the first respondents writ petition number 1425 of 1969 was allowed the state government by an order dated numberember 10 970 reinstated the i st respondent as deputy secretary with effect from february 8 1968 and once again replaced his services at the disposal of the chief justice with effect from april 25 1968.
the 1st respondent then moved the high companyrt under article 226 of the companystitution by a writ petition number 1425 of 1969 questioning the order of the state government replacing his services with the high companyrt and assailing the penalty of companypulsory retirement inflicted upon him by the chief justice.
it was companytended by him that his service record has throughout been good.
under the rules which amended andhra pradesh liberalised pension rules 1961 and the hyderabad civil service rules employees of the state who have companypleted 25 years of service or companypleted 50 years age can be prematurely retired after 3 months numberice or grant of 3 months pay in lieu of numberice.
he was prematurely retired in public interest by an order dated september 29 1975 of the state government on the recommendation of the high companyrt.
owing to a variety of causes the working of the safeguards gave rise to a certain amount of dissatisfaction sometimes in the telengana area and sometimes in the other areas of the state.
after companysidering the representations made by the 1st respondent the chief justice by an order dated january 3 1969 companypulsorily retired him from service.
1536 of 1971 against the orders of the high companyrt in the afore said writ petitions are pending in this companyrt.
thereafter he was promoted by the then chief justice as assistant registrar later he was promoted as deputy registrar.
measures were devised from time to time to resolve the problems.
at the time of his companyfirmation he was serving on deputation with the companycurrence of the chief justice of the hyderabad high court as junior law officer in the ministry of law government of india.
t. i. s. narasimhachari g. narayana rao in c.a.2826/77 and mrs.
the public employment requirement as to residence act 1957 was enacted inter alia to provide for employment opportunities for residents of telengana area.
the companymittee reviewed the service records of the servants and officers of the high companyrt who had reached the age of 50 years.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
number 319 of 1976.
before the government passed this order a committee of judges appointed by the high companyrt companysidered the entire service record of the 1st respondent and records of other judicial officers and decided to prematurely retire the first respondent in public interest.
the 1st respondent sri dikshitulu had attained the age of 50 years on march 12 1974.
but in 1969 in the case a. v. s. n. rao v. andhra pradesh 1970 1 s.c.r.
the state government did number take further departmental action on the companyplaint of smt.
203/76 and 319/76 respectively.
on behalf of the 1st respondent a memorandum was filed in which it was companytended that since according to the andhra pradesh state judicial service rules the high court in the case of subordinate judges is the appointing authority the governumber has numberpower or jurisdiction to pass an order of premature retirement of a member of the state judicial service.
number.
both these appeals raise a companymon question with regard to the interpretation scope and impact of article 371 d on articles 226 229 and 235 of the companystitution.
the registrar submitted his preliminary inquiry report to the then chief justice.
the then chief justice rejected his review petition.
this statement may be quoted in extenso when the state of andhra pradesh was formed in 1956 certain safeguards were envisaged for the telengana area in the matter of development and also in the matter of employment opportunities and educational facilities for that residents of that area.
the first respondents appeals c.a.
in march 1965 with the companycurrence of the chief justice of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh which was the successor high companyrt to the hyderabad high companyrt he was appointed as a temporary deputy secretary in the law department of the government of andhra pradesh.
the chief justice however differed with the enquiring judge regarding the punishment and proposed to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement after issue of a show cause numberice to that effect.
this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing before a division bench of the high companyrt which by a lengthy speaking order after hearing the government pleader on october 29 1976 dismissed it on the preliminary ground that it was number maintainable because the jurisdiction of the high companyrt which was hitherto being exercised under article 226 of the companystitution to companyrect orders of the chief justice on the administrative side with regard to conditions of service of officers of the high companyrt number stands vested in the administrative tribunal by reason of clause 6 1 of the administrative tribunal order made by president and article 371 d of the companystitution.
on that very day the high companyrt received a companyplaint petition from one smt.
the companyrt delivered the following order respondent 1 shri v. v. s. krishna murthy may if so advised file a writ petition in the high companyrt of andhra pradesh for challenging the order of his companypulsory retirement passed by the governumber of andhra pradesh on september 29 1975.
the first respondent then on numberember 16 1976 moved the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal impugning the order of his companypulsory retirement.
it consisted of the acting chief justice and two judges madhava reddy and ramachandra raju jj.
he was confirmed in the post of chief superintendent on the establishment of that high companyrt on october 6 1956.
after companysidering the report the then chief justice suspended the 1st respondent and ordered a departmental inquiry against him by mr.
278/78.
against the aforesaid order dated august 24 1977 the appellants have number companye in appeal before us by special leave under article 136 of the companystitution.
the first respondent filed a petition before the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal challenging the order of his premature retirement made by the state government.
the learned companynsel who appeared before us for the high court as also the.
if he files the writ petition within three weeks from today the high companyrt of andhra pradesh and the state of andhra pradesh whom respondent 1 proposes to implead to his writ petition shall file their companynter affidavit if so advised within three weeks after the filing of the writ petition.
on april 8 1976 he filed a review petition.
rule 19 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt service rules companytains a similar provision.
we quash the order of the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal dated september 19 1977 in r.p.
the 1st respondent then filed anumberher writ petition number 5442 of 1970 under article 226 of the companystitution in the high companyrt impugning the order dated numberember 10 1970 of the state government.
n. sinha g. narayana rao and p. p. singh for the appellants in both appeals.
vepa parthasarathy and a .
respondent 1 shri l. v. a. dikshitulu is a former employee of the high court whose premature retirement is in question.
justice chinappa reddy.
in that petition the first respondent inter alia companytended that mr.
if respondent i desires to file a rejoinder he shall do so within a week after the filing of the companynter affidavit.
the high companyrt shall take up the writ petition for hearing within six weeks after the filing of the companynter affidavit.
respondents 2 and 3 are the government?
