Reversion For Lack Of Qualification After 18 Service Valid, But Pension Can Be Fixed Based On Higher Post: Andhra Pradesh HC
Namdev Singh
16 March 2026 10:46 AM IST
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that a government employee wrongly promoted without requisite qualification can be reverted, but if there is no fraud then recovery of salary is impermissible and pension can be fixed on the basis of higher post.
Background Facts
The petitioners were initially appointed as part time Masalchis during the year 1981 & 1979 respectively. Subsequently they were appointed as Full Time Masalchis. The respondent regularized the services of the petitioners along with other similarly placed persons by appointing them in the permanent Government Posts as attenders.
The petitioners discharged their duties as attenders and they were being paid salaries after fixation of revised pay scales. Later the respondent issued proceedings whereby the petitioners were reverted to the post of Full Time Masalchis after 18 years of service as attenders.
The petitioners were reverted as they did not possess the requisite and eligible qualification of VII class pass, to be appointed as attenders. The respondent further directed to recover the differential wages drawn by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeals before the Registrar (Administration).
It was directed by the Registrar that no recovery of pay and allowances drawn by the petitioners should be done, but it confirmed the reversion. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed the writ petitions.
It was contended by the petitioners that their services were regularized by promoting them as attenders. The petitioners served for a considerable length of period. It was further contended that no notice was issued before passing the orders under challenge.
It was further contended that there was no fraud on the part of the petitioners. It was also submitted that there was no justification in reverting the petitioners after they have served as attenders for 18 long years. Further, the petitioners requested the Court to fix the pension and other benefits based on the salary drawn by the attenders.
On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders as they were passed after considering the facts of the case. It was further submitted that the petitioners were rightly reverted as they did not possess requisite qualification to be appointed as attenders.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the Division Bench that the petitioners were promoted as attenders by regularization of their services. Thereafter, the petitioners served for 18 years without any blemish. It was further observed that the petitioners neither committed any fraud nor made any misrepresentation at the time their services were regularized.
It was held by the Bench that the respondent authorities had regularized the services of the petitioners with eyes wide open and therefore the same cannot be put against the petitioners. Further, there was no malafides attributed against the petitioners. Further, it was noted that the Registrar (Administration) has set aside the order of recovery of wages on appeals, while confirming the order of reversion.
It was further observed that the petitioners were promoted despite the fact that they did not possess the requisite qualifications. It was held that any order passed shall be strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, the order of reversion was upheld by the Division Bench.
It was further held that as the petitioners have served as attenders for a considerable length of time, hence it was directed to the respondents to fix the pension and other benefits based on the salary drawn by the petitioners as attenders. However, it was held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim back wages as attenders.
Consequently, the petitioners were reverted to the post of Full Time Masalchis as they did not possess the requisite qualification of VII class pass. Further the recovery the diferential wages drawn by the petitioners was denied by the Division Bench. And their pension was fixed on the basis of the salary drawn by the petitioners as attenders.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners were are disposed of by the Division Bench.
Case Name : N. Audilakshmamma v. Dist Judge, Chittoor Dist & Anr.
Case No. : WP Nos. 464 & 740 of 2012
Counsel for the Petitioner : K Sarva Bhouma Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : M Bhaskara Lakshmi (SC For APHC), GP For Law Legislative