1979 AIR 193 1979 1 SCR 26 1979 3 SCC 34 With Civil Appeal 278 of 1978 The Judgment was delivered by SARKARIA SARKARIA, J. This judgment will number only dispose of this Appeal C. A. 2826 of 1977 but also furnish reasons in support of our short order dated August 4, 1978, by which we allowed Civil Appeal No.
Now, the relevant facts giving rise to Civil Appeal No.
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 the residents of that area.
stoppage of increments, was number companymunicated to him 1st respondent .
Later, he was promoted as Deputy Registrar.
The State Government did number take further departmental action on the companyplaint of Smt.
After the first respondents writ petition No.
58908 of 1976 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for impugning the order of his companypulsory retirement passed by the Chief Justice, he had served, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Original Side Rules, numberice on the Chief Justice and the Government Pleader, and, in companysequence, at the preliminary hearing of the writ petition before the Division Bench the Government Pleader appeared on behalf of all the respondents including the Chief Justice, and raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was number maintainable in view of Cl.6 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order made by the President under Article 371 D which had taken away that jurisdiction of the High Court and vested the same in the Administrative Tribunal.
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 first respondents appeals C. A. 476 and CA.
Promila Reddy.
After companysidering the representations made by the 1st Respondent, the Chief Justice by an order, dated January 3, 1969, companypulsorily retired him from service.
On that very day, the High Court received a companyplaint petition from one Smt.
The Registrar submitted his preliminary inquiry report to the then Chief Justice.
278 of 1978, may be set out.
Respondents 2 and 3 are the Government, and the Accountant General, respectively, of Andhra Pradesh.
58908 of 1976 under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of his premature retirement.
5442 of 1970 under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court impugning the order, dated November 10, 1970, of the State Government.
It companysisted of the Acting Chief Justice and two Judges Madhava Reddy and Ramachandra Raju, JJ.
By an order, dated September 26, 1975, of the Acting Chief Justice, purporting to have been passed under Article 229 of the Constitution read with Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, R. 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.
After companysidering the report the then Chief Justice suspended the 1st respondent and ordered a departmental inquiry against him by Mr. Justice Chinappa Reddy.
Before the Government passed this order, a Committee of Judges appointed by the High Court, 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 provisions of clause 1 of Article 371 of the Constitution were intended to give effect to certain features of these safeguards.
Measures were devised from time to time to resolve the problems.
After due inquiry, the enquiring Judge found the 1st respondent guilty of misconduct and recommended his suspension from service for three years.
Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules companytains a similar provision.
The Committee resolved to retire him prematurely, among others, in public interest.
The 1st respondent then filed another Writ Petition No.
Thereafter on September 19, 1975, a Committee was companystituted under an order of the Chief Justice.
The Public Employment Requirement as to Residence Act, 1957, was enacted inter alia to provide for employment opportunities for residents of Telengana area.
1425 of 1969 was allowed, the State Government by an order, dated November 10, 1970, reinstated the 1st 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.
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.
1425 of 1969 questioning the order of the State Government replacing his services with the High Court and assailing the penalty of companypulsory retirement inflicted upon him by the Chief Justice.
But in 1969 in the case, A.V.S. Narasimha Rao State of Andhra Pradesh, , the Supreme Court held the relevant provision of the Act to be unconstitutional in so far as it related to the safeguards envisaged for the Telengana area.
On his reversion from deputation he rejoined the establishment of the High Court as Sub Assistant Registrar on February 8, 1968.
Respondent 1 was a permanent employee of the former Hyderabad High Court prior to November 1, 1956.
The High Court set aside the order of reversion of the first respondent from deputation to the High Court staff on the ground that there was a stigma attached thereto.
Respondent 1, Shri L. V. A. Dikshitulu is a former employee of the High Court whose premature retirmeent is in question.
A preliminary inquiry was companyducted by the then Registrar Shri M. Ramachandra Raju later Judge of High Court of Andhra Pradesh respondent 4 herein.
Thereafter, he was promoted by the then Chief Justice as Assistant Registrar.
Any other companystruction, proceeds the argument, will militate against the exclusiveness of the companytrol vested in the Chief Justice under Article 229, and in the High Court under Article 235 over the High Court staff or the Subordinate Judiciary, as the case may be, and will make such companytrol subject and subservient to the wishes of the Executive Government which, in terms of the Presidential Order companystituting the Administrative Tribunal, is the ultimate authority to companyfirm, vary or annul the orders passed by the Tribunal.
He attained the age of 50 years on November 24, 1974.
The Chief Justice, however, differed with the enquiring Judge, regarding the punishment, and proposed to impose the punishment of companypulsory retirement after issue of a show cause numberice to that effect.
In 1975, A. P. Government Servants Premature Retirement Rules, 1975 came into force.
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.
The 1st respondent, Shri V. V. S. Krishnamurthy, in that appeal was, at the material time, a member of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service.
On April 8, 1976, he filed a Review Petition.
By an order dated February 6, 1968, the State Government replaced his services at the disposal of the Chief Justice.
The 1st respondent then moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by a writ petition No.
of the High Court.
The 1st Respondent, Sri Dikshitulu had attained the age of 50 years on March 12, 1974.
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.
The then Chief Justice rejected his Review Petition.
After the dismissal of his writ petition No.5442/70 , the first respondent on reinstatement, joined duty as Sub Assistant Registrar in the High Court.
In Civil Appeal 2826 of 1977, appellant 1 is the Chief Justice and appellant 2 is the High Court of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Registrar of that Court.
But, the High Court dismissed the same by a judgment, dated December 30, 1970.
He was companyfirmed in the post of Chief Superintendent on the establishment of that High Court on October 6, 1956.
The High Court 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 Service C. A. Rules pertaining to lent officers.
He was prematurely retired, in public interest, by an order dated September 29, 1975 of the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court.
The rejection was companymunicated to him by a latter, dated September 13, 1976.
278 of 1978.
The Committee reviewed the service records of the servants and officers of the High Court who had reached the age of 50 years.
The first respondent, again, moved the High Court on the Judicial Side by a writ petition No.
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.
In March 1965, with the companycurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was the successor High Court to the Hyderabad High Court he was appointed as a temporary Deputy Secretary in the Law Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
1536 of 1971 against the order of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions are pending in this Court.
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 Constitution.
