Jayanthipuram Gram Panchayat and Others vs The District Panchayat Officer and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—These writ petitions have been filed by the Sarpanches of various Gram Panchayats. The point canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the employees who were appointed by the petitioners are not being paid salaries as the funds are not being released by the District Collector.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, contends that such of those aggrieved employees, who are not paid salaries, have already invoked the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for vindicating their rights and that the Us is pending there in several original applications, one of which is O.A-No. 6649 of 1993. In so far as the filing of the original applications in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by the aggrieved employees is concerned, that is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. What he submits is that, that case is different from the lis in these writ petitions as the lis is at the instance of the Sarpanches, who cannot approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the jurisdiction lies in this Court. His contention is that because of non-payment of salaries and also termination of the services of employees, the work of the Gram Panchayats is paralysed and that is how he is interested to project the grievance of his employees, whether erstwhile or still functioning.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader counters that in so far as the staffing pattern, which has been accepted by the Collector, is concerned, such employees are being paid salaries according to the rules and service conditions. But, some Sarpanches went on recruiting the staff beyond the staffing pattern and diverted the funds meant for other works, for payment of salaries to the said surplus staff and as such when it came to the notice of the District Collector, the payment of salaries was stopped and their services were terminated.

In so far as the filing of these writ petitions is concerned, there is no personal cause for the Sarpanches to file these writ petitions. They are only projecting the cause of the employees. The employees cannot come to this Court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 663 . and in view of the stay of the Supreme Court with regard to the power of entertaining the service matters by this Court. Obviously, that is the reason why the employees have already invoked the jurisdiction of A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the said Tribunal is seized of the matter. The remedies have to be worked out only in the said Tribunal. The Sarpanches cannot project the cause of their employees on the reason that they cannot approach the Tribunal and under that guise they cannot invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, these writ petitions_apart from being not maintainable, as there is no locus standi for the Sarpanches, the Sarpanches are also barred to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the doctrine of Jus tertii (nobody can plead the cause of another).

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are dismissed and the interim orders stand vacated.

However, this order shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching the Government by way of a representation in that regard and if any representation is made by the petitioners within one month from today, the Government shall consider the same within three months thereafter. No order as to costs.