D. Krishna Murthy and anr. Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

D. Krishna Murthy and anr. vs State of A.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Sep 02, 1994

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/670121

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/670121
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 02, 1994
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - reversion Order - Article 136 of Constitution of India and Rule 37 of Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules - third respondent appointed as typist and promoted to head clerk under Section 37 (a) (i) - third respondent was asked to give undertaking that he will not claim seniority or protection of pay in h...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 14; Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 37

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D. Krishna Murthy and anr.

Respondent

State of A.P. and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 14; Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules - Rule 37
Reported In: JT1994(6)SC154; 1994(4)SCALE97; 1994Supp(3)SCC466; [1994]Supp3SCR90; 1994(3)SLJ137(SC)

Excerpt

.....to head clerk under section 37 (a) (i) - third respondent was asked to give undertaking that he will not claim seniority or protection of pay in his parental department - third respondent thereafter promoted to superintendent but reverted to senior assistant - reversion order became final in appeal and when decision became final tribunal not empowered to reopen it - reversion valid tribunal's order to reinstate third respondent illegal. - section 2(12): [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam, jj] manufacturing process - use of power - esi inspector inspected a hotel and submitted report that 15 persons were employed and a fridge and a grinder was found - appellant contended it was a tourist house where rooms were let out to people on monthly or daily rent basis held, inspector report did not state the process or work that was called the manufacturing process. it did not even say that the refrigerator and the grinder were used in connection with cooking in the establishment. it was wrongly presumed that establishment must have kitchen where food would be cooked using the two appliances running with aid of power. hotel is not to be factory for esi purpose. indian factories act, 1948 section 2(12) : [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam, jj] manufacturing process held, the expression manufacturing process being carried on with the aid of power in section 2(12) of the act does not mean a very indirect application of power such as use of electric bulbs for providing light in the work-area. unless the links are established it is shown that some process or work is carried on in the establishment which qualifies as manufacturing process within the meaning of section 2(k) of the factories act and the manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power, the mere presence of a refrigerator and a grinder there, even though connected to the main power line may not necessarily lead to the inference that the establishment is a factory as defined under section 2(12) of..........any grievance to make he is entitled to as state that claim.4. thereafter venkatashwarlu filed two oas in the tribunal namely, oa no. 2757/92 seeking to consider the representation of venkatashwarlu against the reversion of him from the post of superintendent to senior assistant without notice to him it being illegal and oa no. 1380/93 for direction to promote him to the post of deputy general manager. the tribunal in the impugned order dated 31st january, 1994 allowed the oas and declared that the reversion of the appellant-venkatashwarlu is in violation of go no. 590 and that therefore it is illegal, and directed to reinstate him as superintendent. challenging that order the appellants-respondents before the tribunal have filed this appeal.5. it is contended by sh. narasimha the learned counsel for the appellant that since the order of reversion as a superintendent was allowed to become final by dismissal of rp 444/85 and the slp dismissed by this court, the tribunal was unjustified in directing to reinstate venkatashwarlu to the post of superintendent which cannot be done. it is also contended that the effect of the new act and the go has no effect on the reversion order which was allowed to become final and that therefore the order is illegal. it is contended by venkatashwarlu who appeared in person that when maneru investigation scheme was constituted, while he was working as udc in hyderabad water works department, he was opted to go as senior assistant and was promoted as head clerk when the vacancy had arisen he was entitled to continue in maneru investigation scheme in their capacity. while allowing others who were similarly promoted and there is no parent department, namely hyderabad water works department which was previously existing, reverting him as senior assistant is clearly illegal, and allowing others to enjoy benefit as superintendent and denial further promotion thereof is in violation of article 14.6. we find no force in the contention of.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants. - D. Krishna Murthy and P. Damodar Reddy were appointed as Lower Division Clerks now designated as Junior Assistants in the year 1961-62 in the Department of Hyderabad Water Works Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. They were duly promoted as Upper Division Clerks now designated as Senior Assistants in 1969. Mr. M. Venkatashwarlu, the third respondent in this appeal, was appointed as a Typist in the year 1970 and he was promoted as Senior Assistant on June 9, 1978. While they were continuing as Senior Assistants, the Maneru Investigation Circle was created for the supply of drinking water to Hyderabad city. At that time Venkatashwarlu had opted to go for the Circle. Accordingly, he was transferred as UDC to Maneru Investigation Circle. While he was working there, a vacancy had arisen for a post of Head Clerk. The post of Head Clerk was upgraded as Superintendent which he was continuing as Superintendent, when he was promoted as a Head Clerk by proceedings dated 9/10 July, 1981 under Rule 37(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, he was asked to give an undertaking that he will not claim any seniority or protection of pay scales in his parent department. On July 27, 1981, Venkatashwarlu had given the said undertaking in the following language:

Sub : Establishment - A.P.M.-S. - M. Venkatashwarlu, Head Clerk - Submission of undertaking - Regarding.

Ref : S.E's/MIC/Hyd. Proc. No. E2/MIC/79-81/794 dated 10.7.81.

Sir,

In compliance to the Orders cited, I submit that I will not claim any seniority or protection of pay as Head Clerk either in the Circle or in my parent Circle.

This is for your favour of information and further disposal please.

Pursuant thereto he was promoted. It would appear that the post of Head Clerk was upgraded as Superintendent, while he was continuing as a Superintendent he was reverted as Senior Assistant on March 14, 1985. Mr. Venkatashwarlu challenged the said order of reversion in RP No. 444/85 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on merits by Order dated 7th January, 1986, His Review Petition was also dismissed. He filed a SLP in this Court which came to be dismissed on April 12, 1986. Thus his order of reversion become final and conclusive between him and the appellants and thereby he remained to be junior to the appellants as Senior Assistant.

3. Thereafter Venkatashwarlu filed another RP No. 6617/87 seeking quashing of the reversion order which was dismissed by the Tribunal on July 18, 1988, Thereafter he filed SLP No. 13514/88. It may be relevant at this juncture to state some antecedent history with regard to the Constitution of Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The Board came to be constituted by an Act of 1982. That Act came to be repealed by an Ordinance issued by the Governor and the Ordinance was allowed to be lapsed. In that context for the management of the Water Works Department and continuance of the employees and the Scheme the Government had issued GO No. 590 dated 22nd September, 1993 in which the Chief Engineer Public Health was constituted as a Special Officer and he was asked to function as an Officer on behalf of the Government. Thereafter, another Act came to be passed which constituted a Board with which presently we are not concerned. While the new Act has come into force and the Board was re-constituted, a representation was made to this Court on November 1, 1990, when the SLP had come up for hearing that since the New Board was constituted and Rules are to be made, then this Court while dismissing the SLP made observations thus:

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We direct that Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board to frame its regulations indicating the service conditions of the employees as contemplated under the Statute within six months from today expressly regulations so framed in case the petitioners have any grievance to make he is entitled to as state that claim.

4. Thereafter Venkatashwarlu filed two OAs in the Tribunal namely, OA No. 2757/92 seeking to consider the representation of Venkatashwarlu against the reversion of him from the post of Superintendent to Senior Assistant without notice to him it being illegal and OA No. 1380/93 for direction to promote him to the post of Deputy General Manager. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated 31st January, 1994 allowed the OAs and declared that the reversion of the appellant-Venkatashwarlu is in violation of GO No. 590 and that therefore it is illegal, and directed to reinstate him as Superintendent. Challenging that order the appellants-respondents before the Tribunal have filed this appeal.

5. It is contended by Sh. Narasimha the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the order of reversion as a Superintendent was allowed to become final by dismissal of RP 444/85 and the SLP dismissed by this Court, the Tribunal was unjustified in directing to reinstate Venkatashwarlu to the post of Superintendent which cannot be done. It is also contended that the effect of the new Act and the GO has no effect on the reversion order which was allowed to become final and that therefore the order is illegal. It is contended by Venkatashwarlu who appeared in person that when Maneru Investigation Scheme was constituted, while he was working as UDC in Hyderabad Water Works Department, he was opted to go as Senior Assistant and was promoted as Head Clerk when the vacancy had arisen he was entitled to continue in Maneru Investigation Scheme in their capacity. While allowing others who were similarly promoted and there is no parent department, namely Hyderabad Water Works Department which was previously existing, reverting him as Senior Assistant is clearly illegal, and allowing others to enjoy benefit as Superintendent and denial further promotion thereof is in violation of Article 14.

6. We find no force in the contention of Sri Venkatashwarlu. We cannot go into the legality whether he was rightly or wrongly reverted as Senior Assistant from the post of Superintendent for the reason that his reversion order had become final and it operates as a res-judicata in these proceedings against him.

7. It would appear that when this Court made observations in the second SLP, referred to earlier, that it was open to the Board to make Rules and for Venkatashwarlu and another to peruse the remedy thereunder, it does not have the effect of reviving the order of reversion which had become final. The Tribunal has gone on a wrong track, namely, the legality of the Constitution of the Board under the new Act after the lapse of the Ordinance and the effect of G.O. 590 issued earlier to the new Act. As regards the parties are concerned the above events have no consequence as the erstwhile employees of the Hyderabad Water Department of Government, namely the appellant as Senior Assistant from 1969 and Venkatashwarlu as Senior Assistant since 1978. Under these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in giving direction to reinstate Mr. Venkatashwarlu as Superintendent and to give him consequential benefits. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

8. Mr. Narasimhan has placed before us the undertaking given by Mr. Venkatashwarlu which we have taken on record.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1994 Same Parties D. Krishna Murthy and anr. vs State of A.P. and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 14; Andhra Pradesh Subordinat...

Civil