APHC010800202016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION No: 34718 of 2016 Between: 1. B.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Appanna, Aged 53 Years, Senior Auditor, O/O. Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Director, Directorate of State Audit, Andhra Pradesh, Insurance Buildings, VI Floor, Tilak Road, Hyderabad-500001. 2. The Regional Deputy Director, State Audit Zone Complex, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Deputy Director, State Audit, A.P.Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. 4. Ch.V.Sita, W/o. Sri Ch. Sarada Rao, Aged 50 Years, Senior Auditor, O/o. Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Zilla Parishad, Visakhapatnam, R/o. H. No. 9-41-17, Ajantha Press, Pithapuram Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. 5. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. By Its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No: 34718 of 2016 B.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Appanna, Aged 53 Years, Senior Auditor, O/O. Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Director, Directorate of State Audit, Andhra Pradesh, Insurance Buildings, VI Floor, Tilak Road, The Regional Deputy Director, State Audit Zone-I, Zilla Parishad Complex, Visakhapatnam. The Deputy Director, State Audit, A.P.Andhra University, Ch.V.Sita, W/o. Sri Ch. Sarada Rao, Aged 50 Years, Senior Auditor, O/o. Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Zilla Parishad, Visakhapatnam, 17, Ajantha Towers, III Floor, Beside Andhra Bhoomi Press, Pithapuram Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. By Its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3549] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA B.Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Appanna, Aged 53 Years, Senior Auditor, O/O. Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Anakapalli, ...PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Director, Directorate of State Audit, Andhra Pradesh, Insurance Buildings, VI Floor, Tilak Road, I, Zilla Parishad The Deputy Director, State Audit, A.P.Andhra University, Ch.V.Sita, W/o. Sri Ch. Sarada Rao, Aged 50 Years, Senior Auditor, O/o. Assistant Audit Officer, State Audit, Zilla Parishad, Visakhapatnam, Towers, III Floor, Beside Andhra Bhoomi The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. By Its Registrar, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.B.SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.K.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 2. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) 3. Mr.K UDAYA SRI 4. Mr.D.BALAKRISHNAIAH 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble NJS, J) The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 30.11.2012 in O.A.No.12539 of 2009 as also orders dated 19.09.2016 passed in Review M.A.No.368 of 2013 in the said O.A. 2. The writ petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said O.A. The 4th respondent herein filed O.A.No.12539 of 2009 referred to above seeking to declare Memo ROC.No.28540/D-1/2009 dated 03.11.2009 promoting the 4th respondent therein by appointment by transfer to the cadre of Junior Auditor notionally on par with the applicant w.e.f. 07.08.1992 is illegal and contra to the Rules and consequently to set aside the same. 3. The learned Tribunal vide Orders dated 30.11.2012 allowed the said O.A., declaring inter alia that the Memo dated 03.11.2009 as bad in law and set aside the same. 4. Seeking review of the orders passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, the writ petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No.368 of 2013 and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 19.09.2016, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “I have gone through the order of the Tribunal. There is no error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the Review M.A., is dismissed.” 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel representing the 4th respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the orders under challenge, made submissions to the effect that the order in O.A., was passed without directing notice to the 4th respondent / writ petitioner herein and as such, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He also submits that though a specific ground was raised in the review petition in this regard, the learned Tribunal without examining the matter in the correct perspective, had dismissed the Review Petition. He submits that as no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Tribunal at the time of disposal of the main O.A., the petitioner could not present his case for appreciation and valuable rights are adversely affected. He also submits that the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition attained the age of superannuation, but that may not be a ground for denying the benefits, which the petitioner is otherwise legally entitled to. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions to sustain the orders under challenge. He submits that obviously in view of the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No.18979 of 2007 dated 07.09.2007, the Tribunal felt it not necessary to issue notice to the writ petitioner / 4th respondent before the Tribunal. 5 8. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent also made submissions to sustain the order under challenge with reference to the earlier litigation between the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent. 9. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. Though the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents sought to advance arguments with reference to the merits of the case, this Court in the light of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal passed the orders in the O.A., without affording opportunity to the petitioner, is inclined to examine the same. A reading of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.12539 of 2009 would go to show that the orders were passed after hearing the respondents 1 to 3 therein only. The order does not disclose or refer to issuance of any notice to the respondent No.4 before disposing of the O.A. That apart, even though a specific ground was raised in the review i.e., M.A.No.368 of 2013 with regard to non-issuance of notice and the prejudice caused to the writ petitioner, the review order was passed without examining the same as required under law. The Tribunal has not recorded anything much less non-issuance of notice aspect raised by the review petitioner in the review order. There is no discussion as to whether any notice was directed to the 4th respondent / writ petitioner herein and despite receipt of the same, no steps were taken for entering appearance. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, non-issuance of notice by the Tribunal to the 4th respondent / writ petitioner is fatal, more particularly when the proceedings which were issued in his favour was sought to be set aside. 6 The order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.12539 of 2009, is therefore liable to be set aside. Further, the Review Order does not disclose appreciation of the relevant grounds which goes to the root of the matter, in the right perspective. 11. In the light of the conclusions stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the orders under challenge are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same are set aside. It is made clear that this Court has not examined merits or otherwise of the orders of the learned Tribunal except on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is open for the respective parties to raise all the contentions before the learned Single Judge. As the Tribunal was abolished, the Registry is directed to renumber the O.A.No.12539 of 2009 as Writ Petition(AT) and list before the learned Judge having the Roster of service matters (APAT), as per the procedure. Needless to observe that the claim of the writ petitioner with regard to pension and other benefits, shall be subject to determination of the correctness or otherwise, of the proceedings dated 03.11.2009 by the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 06.08.2025 BLV 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Writ Petition No: 34718 of 2016 Dated: 06.08.2025 BLV