Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose in the context of service conditions of employees of the Hyderabad Water Works Department and its successor bodies. Appellants D. Krishna Murthy and P. Damodar Reddy were senior assistants, while the third respondent M. Venkatashwarlu was reverted from Superintendent to Senior Assistant. The litigation concerned the validity of that reversion and the subsequent attempt by the third respondent to obtain reinstatement. Facts: Appellants were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in 1961-62 and promoted as Upper Division Clerks in 1969. Third respondent was appointed as Typist in 1970 and promoted as Senior Assistant on 9 June 1978. He opted for Maneru Investigation Circle and was transferred as Upper Division Clerk. He was promoted as Head Clerk on 9/10 July 1981 under Rule 37(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules after giving an undertaking not to claim seniority or pay protection. The post was upgraded to Superintendent. He was reverted to Senior Assistant on 14 March 1985. His challenge in R.P. No. 444/85 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was dismissed on 7 January 1986; review dismissed; SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 12 April 1986. Another R.P. No. 6617/87 was dismissed on 18 July 1988; SLP No. 13514/88 was dismissed on 1 November 1990 with directions to frame regulations. Subsequently, G.O. No. 590 dated 22 September 1993 was issued and a new Act constituted the Board. The third respondent filed O.A. Nos. 2757/92 and 1380/93. The Tribunal allowed both on 31 January 1994, declared reversion illegal and directed reinstatement. Appellants filed the present appeal. Legal Issues: Whether the Tribunal could direct reinstatement when the reversion order had attained finality; whether subsequent events like G.O. No. 590 or the new Act revived the reversion; and whether res judicata barred the third respondent. Arguments: Appellants' counsel argued that the reversion order had become final after dismissal of R.P. No. 444/85 and SLP; the new Act and G.O. No. 590 had no effect. The third respondent appearing in person argued that he had opted for Maneru scheme, was promoted as Head Clerk, and was entitled to continue; reverting him while allowing similarly placed persons was illegal and violative of Article 14. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court found no force in the third respondent's contention. It held that the legality of reversion could not be gone into because the reversion order had become final and operated as res judicata. Observations made in the second SLP to frame regulations did not revive the final reversion order. The Tribunal had gone on a wrong track by examining the constitution of the Board and effect of G.O. 590. Since the erstwhile employees were senior assistants from 1969 and 1978 respectively, the subsequent events had no consequence. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and held that the reversion of M. Venkatashwarlu from Superintendent to Senior Assistant was final and conclusive. The Tribunal was wrong in directing reinstatement and consequential benefits. The undertaking given by Venkatashwarlu was taken on record.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion and Reversion - Finality of Reversion Order - Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 37(a)(i) - The reversion of an employee from Superintendent to Senior Assistant was challenged earlier and attained finality after dismissal of review and SLP by Supreme Court. The Tribunal could not direct reinstatement; final order operates as res judicata. Held that reversion order is conclusive. B) Administrative Law - Res Judicata - Applicability to Service Matters - General principles of res judicata - Dismissal of earlier SLP by Supreme Court makes reversion final; subsequent applications cannot re-open. Held that reversion order operates as res judicata. C) Service Law - Effect of Subsequent Enactment and Government Orders - G.O. No. 590 and New Act - Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules - Subsequent constitution of Board, G.O. 590, and directions to frame regulations do not revive a final reversion order. The Tribunal went on wrong track in examining legality of Board constitution and effect of G.O. Held that these events have no consequence on finality. D) Service Law - Undertaking - Seniority and Pay Protection - Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 37(a)(i) - Employee gave undertaking not to claim seniority or protection of pay upon promotion. The undertaking was taken on record and binds the employee. Held that the undertaking reinforces finality.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal could direct reinstatement of the third respondent as Superintendent when his earlier reversion had attained finality after dismissal of R.P. No. 444/85 and SLP; whether subsequent events like G.O. No. 590 or new Act revived the reversion.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order dated 31 January 1994, and held that the reversion of M. Venkatashwarlu from Superintendent to Senior Assistant had become final and operated as res judicata. The Court rejected the contention that the new Act or G.O. No. 590 revived the reversion order and held the Tribunal was wrong in directing reinstatement and consequential benefits. The undertaking given by Venkatashwarlu was taken on record.
Law Points
- Finality of reversion order after dismissal of SLP operates as res judicata
- subsequent government orders or new Act cannot revive
- tribunal cannot re-examine issues already concluded
- undertaking not to claim seniority/pay protection binds employee
