APHC010420712019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 20171/2019 Between: 1. SHAIK BAJEETH, S/O S.S. PEERAN, AGED . ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC . OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, 0/0 REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BESIDE RTC BUS STAND, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, BEHIND RTC BUS STAND, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to a) call for the records pertaining to proceedings dated 22-11- 2019 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential proceedings 2 of the 2nd respondent dated 27-11-2019 and further consequential order dated 7-12-2019 issued by the 3rd respondent, and set them aside as aside as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, belated, amounting to hasty decision, amounting to non-application of mind, unfair, besides being unconstitutional and consequently b)direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Superintendent c)by issuance of Writ of Mandamus.” 2. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner herein has filed the present petition aggrieved by the proceedings dated 22.11.2019 issued by the 1st respondent, the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 27.11.2019, and the further consequential order dated 07.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was reverted from the post of Superintendent to Senior Assistant, then to Junior Assistant, and finally to Field Assistant, solely on the ground that an allegation was made by Dr.Uday Shankar before the Lokayukta that the petitioner’s appointment by transfer as Junior Assistant in the year 1989 was incorrect. In view of the said allegation, a show-cause notice was issued, and despite the petitioner providing a detailed explanation, the reversion was effected, and the same is contended to be arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and wholly unjust. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health would submit that, the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Field 3 Assistant at C.M.Labouratory, Hyderabad in the existing vacancy in the year 1984 and subsequently promoted to different cadres. It is further submitted that the Petitioner without completing two years of service as Junior Assistant, was promoted as a Senior Assistant and thereafter as Office Superintendent, which is against to the Rules in vogue. It is submitted that, after careful examination of the matter, rules that are in existence and the explanation submitted by the individual, the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Guntur has rightly ordered to revert the Petitioner from Office Superintendent to Senior Assistant and there from to Junior Assistant and to his original post of Field Assistant, since the said promotions are in violation of the existing Rules. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is not a case where the petitioner has misrepresented the facts or engaged in fraud to secure his promotions from time to time. It is also not a case where he submitted any false documents to obtain such promotions. The fact remains that, his appointment as Field Assistant through the Employment Exchange in the year 1984 is not in question. Thereafter, upon completing five years of service and having obtained a B.A. degree, he was promoted by transfer as Junior Assistant. There is some force in the argument that the-then existing rules accommodated the petitioner under the “other” category. 6. Be that as it may, the-then officers promoted the petitioner by transfer from the category of Field Assistant to Junior Assistant after being satisfied with his eligibility and suitability for the said post. Admittedly, this promotion 4 was not challenged by any aggrieved party or the Government. The Government never took any action against the petitioner within a reasonable time to demote him to his original post after realizing that he might not have been eligible for such promotion. 7. Even if the State’s argument is accepted as gospel truth, and technically the petitioner was not eligible for transfer from Field Assistant to Junior Assistant, it is only on a technical ground. The Government did not choose to take any steps to revert him to the original post before confirming the prohibition in that post. 8. Regarding the contention of the State that the petitioner received a promotion within two years from the post of Junior Assistant, which is allegedly against the rules, such contention cannot be countenanced after such a long lapse of time. The rules provide a prohibition in the promotion post for two years to observe good conduct for a period of one year in continuous service of two years. However, it is not uncommon for employers to grant early promotions depending on necessity, the need to fill posts, or the scarcity of eligible persons, in public interest. 9. Viewed from any angle, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner acted improperly to obtain an earlier promotion, he cannot be penalized after three decades. Needless to say, any employee approaching the Court seeking relief relating to service matters is expected to do so within a reasonable time. The Court generally cannot entertain claims brought after an unreasonable delay without proper explanation. 5 10. In the present case, only because someone approached the Upa- Lokayukta with a complaint against the petitioner and others regarding their appointment as Junior Assistants and promotions within a period of two years, the respondent authorities chose to take action against the petitioner after 30 years of service. Nothing has been placed on record to cast doubt on the petitioner’s capacity to hold such posts over the last 36 years. Not a single charge memo was issued to the petitioner. 11. It appears that there is some difference of fares at the scale of Field Assistant and Record Assistant to transfer as Junior Assistant. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih & Others.1, wherein, with regard to the permissibility of the employer for recovery from the employees, it was held as under: “It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh 1 AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696 6 or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 12. It is pertinent to mention that, subsequent to the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in Rafiq’s case (supra), the Government of India had issued a memo to all Public Sector Enterprises to follow the directions issued in the said judgment with regard to the recovery of any excess amount from the employees. Further, by reiterating the above judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jogeswar Sahoo & Others vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others2, considered the case of the Stenographers in District Judiciary of Cuttack, Orissa with regard to the same issue. 13. In light of the legal position referred to supra, and taking the same analogy to the present facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that, after 30 years of service, a person cannot be reverted to the position he held when he originally joined the service as a Field Assistant. The impugned orders, which revert the petitioner from the post of Superintendent to Field Assistant, are illegal and arbitrary. It appears that the respondent authorities, merely to comply with the orders of the Upa-Lokayukta, without taking an independent decision, were carried away by the directions issued by the Upa- Lokayukta from time to time. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Proceedings dated 22-11-2019 issued by the 1st Respondent, the consequential proceedings dated 27-11-2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent 2 2025 INSC 449 7 and further consequential order dated 7-12-2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent, are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:08.10.2025 ASR 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.20171 of 2019 Dt.08.10.2025 Asr