\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6790 OF 2019 Between; 1. The State of A.P, rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation and CAD (Ser.V.2) Department now as Water Resource Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), now as Water Resource Department North Coast, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and CAD now as Water Resource Department, B.R.R.Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam District. 4. The Executive Engineer, B.R.R.Vamsadhara Project, Division No.1, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS IN O.A.4867/2015 AND 1. U.Bhishma Prasad, S/o late Rama Rao, aged about 62 years, Occ: ' Office Subordinate (Rtd) R/o.D.No.16-21-55, P.N.Colony, Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam. ' s RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT IN O.A.No.4867/2015 2. The District Audit Officer, Srikakulam. (2"'^ Respondent is a formal party) ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.4867/2105, dated 25-01-2018 and to quash or set aside the same as contrary to law and facts of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders in O.A.No.4867/20 15, dated 25-01-2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Writ Petition. - lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Between: U.Bhishma Prasad, S/o late Rama Rao, aged about 62 years, Occ: Office Subordinate (Rtd) R/o.D.No.16-21-55, P.N. Colony, Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam. ...VACATE PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT AND 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Irrigation and CAD (Ser.V.2) Department now as Water Resource Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), now as Water Resource Department North Coast, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and CAD now as Water Resource Department, B.R.R.Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam District. 4. The Executive Engineer, B.R.R.Vamsadhara Project, Division No.1, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District 5. The District Audit Officer, Srikakulam. 'T ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim suspension granted in I.A No. 1 of 2019 in W.P No. 6970 of 2019 on 04-06-2019. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, GP FOR SERVICES-1 Counsel for the Respondent No.1; SRI B. M. PATRO Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^- The Court made the following: ORDER 1 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + WRIT PETITION No.6790 OF 201Q % 2.9^.01.2025 # The State of AP, rep by its Secretary, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.V.2) Department, Velagapudi, Guntur Petitioners. And: $1.U. Bhishma Prasad and another ....Respondents. : Sri K. Ramalingeswara Rao Gov. Pleader for Services-I ICounsel for the petitioners '^Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Sri B.M.Patro <Gist; >Head Note. ? Cases referred; 1.2009(6) SCJ 805 ^(1986)3 see 156 ^(2013) 8 see 345 2016 see OnLine P&H 17307 2 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.6790 OF 201Q DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCFn- .01.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAI • THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Whether Reporters of Local newspapers ^^y>fes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments? Whether the copies of judgment may be '^^es/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? 1. 2. 3. Yes/No 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.6790 OF 2019 JUDGMENT: per the HonTple Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari: 1. Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri B.M.Patro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-applicant. The respondent/applicant U. Bheeshma Prasad initially joined as Helper on Non Mazdoor Roll (NMR) basis in March, 1973 in the Main Canal Sub-Division, Vamsadhara Project within the Circle of the 3'''^ respondent and worked in various categories till 05.06.1976. The applicant was stopped from attending the duty from 06.06.1976 and again after fortnight, he was taken to duty and posted under the control of Executive Engineer, Main Canal Division, Narasanappeta, Srikakulam District. 2. The applicant was again removed from service in the year 1983. 3. The applicant/1 respondent filed I.D.No.104 of 1989 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. An award was passed on 05.09.1990 directing the respondents 3 and 4 in I.D Case, (petitioners 3 and 4 herein) (the Superintendent Engineer, I & 4 CAD, B.R.R (Vamsadhara) Project Circle, Srikakulam Chief Engnin^er, BRRP and the Division No.1, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District) respectively, to reinstate the applicant without continuity of service and back wages. The applicant-respondent No.1 was reinstated into service as Electrician Grade-ll on NMR basis and posted at Vamsadhara Project Maintenance Sub-Division, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District where he joined on 01.01.1990. He however, filed W.P.No.19347 of 1993 challenging the award of the Labour Court in respect of not granting the back wages and continuity of service. 4. 5. This court modified the award of the Labour Court vide judgment dated 18.06.2003, to the extent of continuity of service for the purpose of calculation of pension of the applicant at the time of retirement. 6. The State of Andhra Pradesh-petitioner No.1 Government vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.58 Irrigation & CAD (Ser.V.2) Department dated 07.08.2006 issued necessary orders to consider the case of the applicant and ordered for absorption against the existing vacancy in the category of Attender as he 5 fulfilled all the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance (PC-Ill) Department dated 22.04.1994. 7. G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 07.08.2006, though provided for regularization of service, but, with prospective effect from the date of issue of the order, and providing further that the NMR Service will not count for calculation of pension. The applicant was appointed on regular basis in the cadre of the Attender in the time scale of Rs.3,850/- - Rs.8,600/- and other usual allowances vide proceedings No.874 dated 25.08.2006. He was posted to B.R.R. Vamsadhara Project Sub - Division No.IV, Srikakulam, with instructions that he was not entitled to claim NMR service for calculation of pension as directed in G.O.Ms.No.58, I & CAD Department, dated 07.08.2006, in view of the instructions issued by the Government in Memo No.7998, Ser-V/2006-2, dated 22.05.2006. 8. The applicant therefore, filed O.A.No.4867 of 2015 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short, the Tribunal) for a direction to the petitioners herein, to count his f^MR service with effect from 01.03.1973 onwards in terms of the ]u\igment dated 18.06.2003 passed in W.P.No.19347 of 1993. 6 9. The petitioners filed counter in O.A, admitting that the 1 respondent herein, joined in the department fl as NMR on 01.03.1973, but contending that in view of G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 07.08.2006 his NMR service prior to his absorption, were not to be counted for calculation of He was eligible for absorption from the date of issue of orders i.e prospectively. They also raised the plea that the applicant/1 an undertaking signed and filed on 03.06.2006 that he would not pension. respondent had given claim the NMR service for the purpose of calculation of pension in the event of regularization of his services. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the 10. present It considered the direction of this Court in W.P.No. 19347 of 1993 vide judgment dated 18.06.2003, and aJso the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijii Vitran NIgam and others vs. Bachan Singh^ and disposed of the O.A, holding that the NMR services of the 1®* respondent, from 01.03.1973 till the date of his regularization, were also to be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension and benefits. petitioners. pensionary ' 2009(6) SCJ 805 7 With respect to the present petitioner’s contention based on the undertaking given by the 1®* respondent, dated 03.06.2006, the Tribunal took the view that the undertaking had no meaning. 11. being against the law. The Tribunal, accordingly, issued direction to revise the pension proposals while counting the NMR service of the 1®' respondent from 01.03.1973 till the date of his regularization, in calculating the qualified service for pension and release the same. 12. Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the G.O.Ms.No.58 St dated 07.08.2006 and the undertaking given by the 1 respondent that he would not be claiming the NMR Services for the purpose of calculation of pension in the event of his regularization, the order of the Tribunal cannot be legally sustained. The 1®* respondent was bound by the undertaking He submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.58 was never under given. challenge. So, the directions as issued by the Tribunal, could not be issued. 13. Sri B.N. Patro, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order of the Tribunal. He submitted that the N.M.R Services had to be counted for the pension and pensionary 8 benefits in view of the judgment of this court in W.P.No. 19347 of 1993. 14. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. The point for consideration is “whether the Tribunal is justified in passing the order in favour of the 1®* respondent for counting his NMR Service from 01.03.1973 for the purpose of fixation of pension and other pensionary benefits. The sole contention to challenge the order of the Tribunal is the undertaking given by the respondent No.1 and the G.O.Ms.No.58. 15. 16. 17. In W.P.No. 19347 of 1993, this court passed the order dated 18.06.2003 modifying the award to the extent of continuity of service for the purpose of calculation of the pension of the petitioner at the time of retirement.” The operative part of the judgment/order dated 18.06.2003 in W.P.No.19347 of 1993 reads as under; 18. “There is no dispute that the petitioner was working an NMR with the respondents. It is also not in dispute that there is a delay in instituting the Industrial Dispute. The respondents have not adduced any evidence before the Labour Court opposing the as 9 petition. Under the circumstances it would suffice if the award is modified to the extent of continuity of service for the purpose of calculation of the pension of the petitioner at the time of retirement. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.” It is not in dispute that the order of this court passed in the aforesaid writ petition attained finality as it was not challenged. The undertaking of the respondent was taken, pursuant to the Memo No.7998 dated 22.05.2006 (Ex.P.5), by which, the Secretary to the Government directed the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam, the Superintendent Engineer, Vamsadara Project Circle, Srikakulam, to obtain an undertaking from the 1 respondent to the effect that he will not claim the N.M.R for the 19. 20. St purpose of calculation of pension as directed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 19347 of 1993 dated 18.06.2003, and furnish the same to Government for taking further action in the matter. / \ \ 10 21. The memo dated 22.05.2006 reads as under; “GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IRRIGATION 86 CAD (SER.V.2) DEPARTMENT Memo No.7998/Ser.V.2/2006-2 22.05.2006. Dated ub. Establishment - Sri U. Bhisma Prasad, NMR, Electrician Gr.II, Vamsadhara Project Circle (Srikakulam - absorption in the cadre of Attender per G.O.Ms.No.212, Fin (PC.III) Dept, dt 22.4 94 - undertaking called for - Regarding. Ref: from the CE, Noroth Coast, Visakhapatnam Lr.No.CE/NC/VSP/A3/1490-7/6, dt 17.3 06 2. From the S.E I 86 CAD Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam Lr.No.S.E/SKLM/AB/E 2/File No.E.13/62CE,dt 6.3.2006. ' as ********** The attention of the Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam/ Superintending Engineer, Vamsadara project Circle, Srikakulam is invited to the references cited. He is requested to obtain an undertaking from Sri U. Bhisma Prasad, NMR to the effect that he will not claim the NMR Service for the purpose of calculation of pension as directed by the A.P High Court in W.P.No. 19347 of 1993 dated 18.6.2003 and furnish the same to Government for taking further action in the matter. 2. He also requested to state whether persons overlooked/omitted from regularization to the present proposal. any senior qualified the R.R. Misra, Secretaiy to Government.” \ 22. The undertaking dated 03.06.2006 of respondent reads as under; No.1 11 “As per the directions in the Memo No.7998/Se V2/2006-2 of the Irrigation & CAD (Ser V2) Department, dated 22.05.2006 Government of A.P. Hyderabad Communicated vide Endt. No.24 N E.E/N. Peta/AB/A2, Dt.2.6.2006 of the Executive Engineer, V.P.M Division, Narasannapeta. I.U. Bhisma Prasad, N.M.R Electrical Grade-II Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam, hereby undertake that I will not claim the N.M.R Service for the purpose of calculation of pension in the event of my regularization of my service.” 23. The G.O.Ms.No.58 Irrigation & CAD (Ser.V.2) Department dated 7.8.2006 reads as under; GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Establishment - Irrigation & Command Area Development Department U.Bhishma Prasad, NMR, Electrician Gr.II, Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam - Regularisation of services in the cadre of Attender as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Fin (PC.III) Deptt, dt:22.4.94-orders - ISSUED. IRRIGATION & CAD (SER.V.2) DEPARTMENT Dated:7-8-2006, Read the G.O.Ms.No.50 following: 1) From the CE, North Coast, Visakhapatnam L. No. CE/NCA/SP/A3/1 490- 7/-6,dt: 17.3.06. 2) Govt Memo No. 7998/Ser. V.2/06-2.1 & CAD dept, dated:22-5-200 6. 3) From the S.E, Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam. Lr No SE/Skim/E2/Fileo.E/13 586M dt.7-6-2006. ORDER: In the reference 1st read above, the Chief Engineer, North Coast Visakhapatnam has reported that the Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project Circle has submitted proposals for absorption of Sri U.Bhishma Prasad NMR Electrician Gr.ll into AP LGS Services as Attender and Sri U.Bheeshma Prasad NMR Electrician Gr.ll has requested to convert him in the category of Attender as per G.O.Ms.No.212, Fin (PC.III) Deptt,, dt:22.4.94. As verified from the proposal of the Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam, the individual has approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad and filed W.P.No. 19374/93 for his baek wages and continuity of service after reinstatement into service by the Executive Engineer, Vamsadhan Project Maintenance Division, Narsannapeta vide proceedings No. 959 M N 12 o dated 31 12 1990, The Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 19374/93 has pronounced final judgment dated 18.6.2003 to the extent of grating continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 3/73 as ordered in the said Judgment duly modifying the award or Labour court orders. The individual has completed 5 years of services by the cut off date i.e 25.11.1993 and fulfilled all the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22.4.1994 and he is continuing as NMR Electrician Gr.ll till to date. Hence, he is eligible for absorption in the cadre of Attender and he can be accommodated in one of the clear vacancy of Attender against Roster point No.98 meant for Attender's and the post of Attender is being continued year after year last post sanctioned upto, 28.2.06 vide Engineer-in Chiefs Memo No. 65205/05, dated 16.2.2006. The individual failed 10th class examination He is eligible for appointment under APLGS as per rules in force as he possessed qualification for the post of Attender. 2. In the reference 3rd read above, the Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam has furnished an undertaking obtained from Sri U.Bhishma Prasad, N.M.R. Electrician Grade.ll to the effect that he will not claim the N.M.R Service for the purpose of calculation of pension directed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad In W.P.No. 19347/93 dated 18-6-2003. There are no senior qualified persons in N.M.R. Cadre are over looked / omitted. The Chief Engineer, North Coast, Visakhapatnam has requested the Government to communicate the orders in the matter. Government after careful examination of the proposal, hereby permit the Chief Engineer, North Cost, Visakhapatnam to regularise the services of Sri U. Bhishma Prasad, NMR Electrician Gr.ll Vamsadhara Project Circle, Visakhapatnam as an Attender in the existing regular vacancy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance (PC.III) Department, dated 22-4-94 from the date of issue of orders ie. prospective effect, and the NMR service will not count for calculation of pension. The Chief Engineer, North Cost, Visakhapatnam shall take further action in the matter accordingly. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) RAJEEV RANJAN MISHRA, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. as 3. 4. 5. To The Chief Engineer, North Cost, Visakhapatnam. The Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam. //FORWARDED::BY ORDER// SECTION OFFICER. 13 24. It clearly appears to us as is also evident, that in order to overcome the direction given in W.P.No. 19347 of 1993, the petitioners took undertaking from the 1®‘ respondent while regularizing his services. There is nothing brought to our notice that for the regularization of the 1®‘ respondent’s service, under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 or the like, any such undertaking was required to be given, or was a prerequisite. On the other hand, perusal of G.O.Ms.No.58, clearly shows that the 1® respondent was eligible for regularization of services under the rules and the Government Order. 25. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another^, in the context of a contract, as involved therein, whether voidable or void, it was observed as under: 91. Is a contract of the type mentioned above to be adjudged voidable or void? If it was induced by undue influence, then under section 19A of the Indian Contract Act, it would be voidable. It is, however, rarely that contracts of the types to which the principle formulated by us above applies are induced by undue influence as defined by section 16(1) of the Indian Contract Act, even though at times they are between parties one of ^(1986) 3 see 156 14 whom holds a real or apparent authority over the other. In the vast majority of cases, however, such contracts are entered into by the weaker party under pressure of circumstances, generally economic, which results in inequality of bargaining power. Such contracts will not fall within the four corners of the definition of "undue influence" given in section 16(1). Further, the majority of such contracts are in a standard or prescribed form or consist of a set of rules. They are not contracts between individuals containing terms meant for those individuals alone. Contracts in prescribed or standard forms or which embody a set of rules as part of the contract are entered into by the party with superior bargaining power with a large number of persons who have far less bargaining power or no bargaining power at all. Such contracts which affect a large number of persons or a group or groups of persons, if they are unconscionable, unfair and unreasonable, are injurious to the public interest. To say that such a contract is only voidable would be to compel each person with whom the party with superior bargaining power had contracted to go to court to have the contract adjudged voidable. This would only result in multiplicity of litigation which no court should encourage and would also not be in the public interest. Such a contract or such a clause in a contract ought, therefore, to be adjudged void. While the law of contracts in England is mostly judge-made, the law of contracts in India is enacted in a statute, namely, the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In order that such a contract should be void, it must fall under one of 15 the relevant sections of the Indian Contract Act. The only relevant provision in the Indian Contract Act which . can apply is section 23 when it states that "The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless ... the court regards it as . . . Opposed to public policy." In Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited vs. Partha 26. Sarathi Sen Roy and others^, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that “Where an unfair and untenable, or an irrational clause in a contract, is also unjust, the same is amenable to judicial review. The Constitution provides for achieving social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Thus, it is necessary to strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair or unreasonable clause in a contract, that has been entered into by parties who do not enjoy equal bargaining power, and are hence hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act, and where such a condition or provision becomes unconscionable, unfair, unreasonable and further, is against public policy. Where inequality of bargaining power is the result of great disparity between the economic strengths of the contracting parties, the aforesaid principle would automatically apply for the reason that. ^(2013) 8 see 345 \ \ 16 •x freedom of contract must be founded on the basis of equality of bargaining power between such contracting parties, and though ad idem is assumed, applicability of standard form of contract is the rule. Consent or consensus ad idem as regards the weaker party may therefore, be entirely absent. Thus, the existence of equal bargaining power between parties, becomes largely an illusion. The State itself, or a state instrumentality cannot impose unconstitutional conditions rules/regulations its employees. Though the judgments in Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited (supra) and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (supra) are on the point of contract between the parties who do not stand on equal footing and one is a weaker party under pressure of circumstances generally economic having no bargaining power, but in our view, the same principle can be applied with respect to the undertaking also, taken by the State from the 1®* respondent, on the same reasoning of the employee (NMR) having no power to oppose or deny giving the undertaking asked for, under the circumstances being concerned about his services and for regularization. So, in such undertaking is nothing but a nullity and void even in statutory 27. our view. / 17 which cannot be enforced by the State and its authorities against the 1®' respondent, to deny him the benefit of the judicial order of the High Court. In Maghar Singh vs. The State of Punjab and another'^, the petitioner therein was dismissed from service on conviction in 28. criminal charge. Later on, he was acquitted and the order of the acquittal attained finality. He applied for reinstatement into service and for grant of incidental and consequential reliefs and benefits. He was denied. He filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The State opposed the petition. inter alia raising the objection that the petitioner had given undertaking to agree that he will not claim the pay/salary for the period he remained dismissed. The question that arose for consideration was, what was the legal value of the undertaking. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held in paragraphs 27 and 28 as under: “27. On these premises, it is my sincere belief that when the issue of reinstatement arose for consideration after acquittal, a reasonable and law faring Judicial Officer holding the high post of District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur should not have readily accepted the undertaking without batting an eyelid as it was against public policy of India to misuse ‘'2016 see OnLine P&H 17307 \ 18 the law of estopple and was an action taken a rather unfair thing to do to a subordinate official who could never be in a position to retaliate with the strong arm of reason Neutral Citation No:=2016:PHHC:097045 16 of 24 “28. The petitioner apparently seems to have been browbeaten to submission in a court setting and any resistance offered by him might have caused him an injury worse than an open wound. The petitioner would have been well been within his rights to remonstrate and pray for an order in writing against him which he could get tested in a court of law. The Court can take judicial notice of this circumstantial evidence from the sequence of events arising after acquittal claiming reinstatement since it can be easily imagined that the petitioner was buckled down on his knees to believe that if he wanted to seek reinstatement in service he must surrender some of his valuable monetary rights to obtain the predominant relief of reinstatement so dear to him, succumbing on the altar of an admission by way of an undertaking given to waive claim for money in exchange for an expeditious reinstatement to service. This is the throbbing area where the principles of far reaching consequences fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in C entral Inland Water v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, AIR 1986 SC 1531: 1986 SCR (2) 278 in an outstanding case where for the first time the Supreme Court introduced the principles in Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to do justice in a matter of unfair contracts and compelling employees to sign on the dotted line of an unconscionable term Neutral Citation No:=2016:PHHC:097045 17 of 24 Downloaded on - 23- 19 01-2025 15:39:48 ::: CWP No.l5771 of 1999 (O&M) -18- in the contract-form infringing equality principles in Article 14 of the Constitution. A parallel can verily easily be drawn from that judgment and applied to this case to achieve a fair and proper end.” We do not approve rather condemn such an act and 29. conduct of the petitioners in asking for and taking the undertaking of the respondent only to deprive him of his due amount of pension, which should have been allowed to him, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No. 19347 of 1993 which had attained finality. The undertaking of the 1®* respondent, under the circumstances, we hold, cannot be binding on the 1 respondent. The Tribunal has rightly held that the undertaking was against the law and no sanctity could be attached to such St undertaking. The 1®* respondent retired from service on 31.07.2013 on 30. attaining the age of superannuation. Since then, more than 11 years have passed. The 1®* respondent is deprived of his due amount of pension, which should have been fixed and paid as per A \ i I the judgment of this court in W.P.No.19347 of 1993. 31. There is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. 32. The writ petition lack merits and is dismissed. 20 33. We direct the petitioners to fix the pension of the 1 respondent correctly, in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.06.2003 in W.P. No.19347 of 1993, Tribunal dated 25.01.2018, St and of the and to pay the arrears of the difference on such calculation with interest thereon @ 9% from the next date of superannuation of the 1®‘ respondent till the date of payment within a period of tvyo months from the date a copy of this order is served to the petitioners. pa 34. We impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on the petitioners, payable to the 1®' respondent. The cost shall be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within one month from today and on such deposit, the same shall be paid to the 1®* respondent. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed. SD/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) SE One fair copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Secretary, Irrigation and CAD (Ser.V.2) Department now as Water Resource Department, State of A.P., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.( By Spl. Messanger) 2. The Chief Engineer (Irrigation), now as Water Resource Department North Coast, Visakhapatnam. ( By Speed Post) 3. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and CAD now as Water Resource Department, B.R.R.Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam District. ( By Speed Post) 4. The Executive Engineer, B.R.R.Vamsadhara Project, Division No.1, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District( By Speed Post) 5. The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. 6. U.Bhishma Prasad, S/o late Rama Rao, R/o.D.No.16-21-55, P.N.Colony, Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam. 7. One CC to Sri B. M. Patro, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CC’s to GP for Services-I, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi[OUT] 9. 9 LR Copies 10. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 11. The Secretary, A.P. Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 12. The Section Officer, Account'Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati. 13. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER h 01 FEB 2025 | WP.No.6790 of 2019 . Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE W.P. WITH COST