Government of A.P. and Others Vs. Kolla Raghavaiah and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos 5621-22 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16703-16704 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16703-16704 of 1999)
Petitioner: Government of A.P. and Others
Respondent: Kolla Raghavaiah and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos 5621-22 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16703-16704 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16703-16704 of 1999)
Judges: V.N. KHARE & R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 27, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Article 226 – Regularisation of service – Petition filed by respondents for regularisation of services allowed by High Court – Leave to file writ appeal by the appellant-State, refused by the same court – Panchayat being a grant-holder of the State Govt., latter also a necessary party to writ petition. Held, view taken by High Court, erroneous. Appeal allowed and case sent back to High Court to be decided in accordance with law.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondents filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for regularisation of their services. In the said writ petition before the High Court, the appellant nos. 2 and 3 were arrayed as respondents. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a direction to regularise the serv-ices of respondents herein. Against the said judgment, State of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collector, Prakasam District and the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District, sought leave of the High Court to file writ appeal. The High Court refused to accord leave to file an appeal on the ground that the respondents were not employees of the appellants. It is against the said judgment the appellants are in appeal before us.
3. This Court issued notice on 25.11.99 limited to the question as to why the matter should not be remanded to the High Court.
4. We have heard Counsel for parties. It is not disputed that ap-pellants no 2 and 3 were also appellants before the High Court. It is only, the Government of Andhra Pradesh who was not a party in the writ petition as the State Government was not impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. It is also not disputed that Panchayat is getting grant from the State Government and, there-fore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was also a necessary party. In view of the said fact, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party to the writ petition and was not impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Under such circum-stances, the High Court ought to have accorded leave to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to file writ appeal. We are satis-fied that the view taken by the High Court in declining to grant leave to the Government of Andhra Pradesh was erroneous. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal and send the case back to the High Court for deciding the appeal preferred by the appellants in accordance with law.
5. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondents filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for regularisation of their services. In the said writ petition before the High Court, the appellant nos. 2 and 3 were arrayed as respondents. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a direction to regularise the serv-ices of respondents herein. Against the said judgment, State of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collector, Prakasam District and the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District, sought leave of the High Court to file writ appeal. The High Court refused to accord leave to file an appeal on the ground that the respondents were not employees of the appellants. It is against the said judgment the appellants are in appeal before us.
3. This Court issued notice on 25.11.99 limited to the question as to why the matter should not be remanded to the High Court.
4. We have heard Counsel for parties. It is not disputed that ap-pellants no 2 and 3 were also appellants before the High Court. It is only, the Government of Andhra Pradesh who was not a party in the writ petition as the State Government was not impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. It is also not disputed that Panchayat is getting grant from the State Government and, there-fore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was also a necessary party. In view of the said fact, the Government of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party to the writ petition and was not impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Under such circum-stances, the High Court ought to have accorded leave to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to file writ appeal. We are satis-fied that the view taken by the High Court in declining to grant leave to the Government of Andhra Pradesh was erroneous. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under appeal and send the case back to the High Court for deciding the appeal preferred by the appellants in accordance with law.
5. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
