G. Suryanarayana And Another v. Superintending Engineer And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Special leave was granted. The appellants challenged an order dated 31-10-1987 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Rajahmundry, East Godavary District, repatriating Appellant 1 (G. Suryanarayana) and Appellant 2 (K. Venkatacharyalu) to the Vizianagaram Division. Appellant 1 was repatriated as Draughtsman Grade III and Appellant 2 as Junior Assistant.

Appellant 1 relied on an order dated 21-11-1980 by the Superintending Engineer, I & PD, Medium Irrigation Projects Circle, Bobbili, stating that his services were regularised in the cadre of Draughtsman Grade II with effect from 29-4-1978 forenoon in Category IV(b) under Branch (I) of the APESS Rules. Appellant 2 relied on an order dated 22-11-1978 by the Superintending Engineer, I & PD, Irrigation Circle, Srikakulam at Bobbili, under which his services were regularised with effect from 21-4-1978 as a Senior Assistant (Upper Division Clerk).

The appeal also sought the setting aside of the order of the Tribunal; the Court ultimately set aside both the repatriation order and the Tribunal’s order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the impugned repatriation orders dated 31-10-1987, which had the effect of taking away the benefit of earlier regularisation and promotion, could be passed without giving the appellants notice and an opportunity to show cause.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The repatriation orders effectively took away the benefits of earlier orders of regularisation and promotion granted to each appellant.
• The repatriation orders were passed without issuing notice to the appellants or calling upon them to show cause against the proposed action.
• Appellant 1 relied on an order regularising him as Draughtsman Grade II with effect from 29-4-1978 (forenoon) under the APESS Rules.
• Appellant 2 relied on an order regularising him as Senior Assistant (Upper Division Clerk) with effect from 21-4-1978.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court focused on the procedural fairness requirement in the “special circumstances of the case.” It held that the impugned repatriation orders could not have been made without giving the appellants an opportunity to show cause because the repatriation had the effect of depriving them of the benefits flowing from prior orders of regularisation and promotion.

The Court noted that these benefits had been granted under Rule 37(a)(i) of the General Rules of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules and that the impugned action was taken after nearly nine years had elapsed, thereby adversely affecting the appellants. On this basis, the Court set aside the repatriation order, while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying contentions. It reserved liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh by issuing notice, obtaining the appellants’ representations, and then passing appropriate orders.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED; SET ASIDE: The Court set aside the Superintending Engineer’s order dated 31-10-1987 and also set aside the Tribunal’s order.

The authorities were given liberty to pass fresh, appropriate orders only after issuing notices to the appellants to show cause and considering their representations. The appellants were directed to be taken back to duty immediately at the places where they were working before the impugned repatriation orders, and any salary due to each appellant was directed to be paid. The opinion did not discuss broader implications beyond these directions and did not purport to lay down any new precedent.