Public Works Contracts – Sub-contractor – Liability of State Where the State sanctioned special imprest funds, issued direct instructions to the sub-contractor, supervised execution, acknowledged completion of work, and admitted liability in official correspondence, the State cannot evade payment by contending that the sub-contractor must pursue remedies only against the principal contractor. (Paras 5–7, 20–22, 26–27)

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226

Writ of Mandamus – Maintainability – Sub-contractor claiming payment from State – Absence of privity of contract

Writ petition by a sub-contractor is maintainable under Article 226 where the State, having directly instructed execution of works, supervised the work, acknowledged completion, and enjoyed the benefit thereof, cannot deny payment merely on the ground of absence of direct contractual relationship.
(Paras 19–20, 26–27)

---

Public Works Contracts – Sub-contractor – Liability of State

Where the State sanctioned special imprest funds, issued direct instructions to the sub-contractor, supervised execution, acknowledged completion of work, and admitted liability in official correspondence, the State cannot evade payment by contending that the sub-contractor must pursue remedies only against the principal contractor.
(Paras 5–7, 20–22, 26–27)

---

Termination of Main EPC Contract – Effect on Sub-contractor’s dues

Termination of the main Engineer, Procurement and Construction agreement does not absolve the State of its obligation to pay for works already completed by a sub-contractor prior to termination, especially when such completion is admitted and recommended for payment by departmental authorities even after termination.
(Paras 22, 26)

---

Admissions by State – Binding effect

Official letters and minutes of meetings acknowledging execution of work, availability of funds, and recommending payment constitute admissions by the State, and denial of payment contrary thereto is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
(Paras 21–23, 26–27)

---

Arbitrariness – Article 14

Denial of payment after enjoying the benefit of completed works, despite admitted liability and availability of funds recovered from the main contractor, is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 26–27)

---

Government Contracts – Unjust enrichment

The State, having derived benefit from specialised ground improvement works executed under its supervision, cannot unjustly enrich itself by withholding payment on technical pleas relating to contractual structure.
(Paras 26–27)

---

Relief – Direction for payment

Where the amount payable is admitted and quantified by departmental authorities, the Court can direct payment of such amount within a stipulated period in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
(Paras 23–28)

---

ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition

The Court examined the objection regarding absence of privity of contract and held that the writ petition is maintainable, as the petitioner executed works under direct instructions and supervision of the Water Resources Department, and the Department itself acknowledged and benefited from such works.
(Paras 19–20, 26–27)

---

2. Role of Special Imprest and Direct Dealings

The sanction of special imprest funds, issuance of direct instructions to commence work, and continuous monitoring through review meetings established a direct nexus between the petitioner and the State, negating the plea that the petitioner was a mere stranger to the Department.
(Paras 5–6, 20)

---

3. Effect of Termination of EPC Agreement

The Court rejected the contention that termination of the EPC agreement in 2019 extinguished liability towards the petitioner, noting that the works were completed in 2018 and that payment was recommended even after termination.
(Paras 22, 26)

---

4. Evidentiary Value of Official Correspondence

The letter dated 29.12.2020 and the Minutes of Meetings were treated as clear admissions acknowledging the petitioner’s role, completion of work, availability of funds, and recommended payment of ₹45.90 crores.
(Paras 21–23)

---

5. Arbitrariness and Constitutional Violation

The Court held that withholding payment after enjoying the benefit of completed works, despite admitted liability and recovery of substantial sums from the main contractor, amounted to arbitrariness and was unsustainable under Article 14.
(Paras 26–27)

---

6. Entitlement and Relief

Given that the payable amount stood admitted and quantified, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction to direct payment of ₹45.90 crores within a specified period.
(Para 28)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. The State cannot deny payment to a sub-contractor on the ground of lack of privity when it directly instructed, supervised, acknowledged, and benefited from the work executed.

2. Termination of the principal contract does not extinguish the State’s liability to pay for works already completed and admitted prior to such termination.

3. Official acknowledgements and recommendations by departmental authorities constitute binding admissions, and denial of payment contrary thereto is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

4. Enjoyment of the benefit of completed public works without payment amounts to unjust enrichment and is impermissible in law.

5. Where liability is admitted and quantified, a writ of mandamus directing payment is justified.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ss. 14, 16, 22...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ss. 14, 16, 22...: advocatemmmohan Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ss. 14, 16, 22 Maintainability of writ petition...

Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ss. 14, 16, 22
Maintainability of writ petition against NGT order – Alternative statutory remedy – Scope

Availability of statutory appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act does not oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is maintainable where challenge is on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice. Pendency of writ petition since 2021 with affidavits exchanged is an additional factor justifying entertainment.
(Paras 29–38, 85(i)–(ii))

---

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – S. 16

“Person aggrieved” – Locus standi – Resident of affected village

Resident of the village where mining operations are carried on is a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 16 of the NGT Act, as environmental degradation directly impacts the right to clean environment under Article 21 of the Constitution. Such person cannot be treated as a stranger or busybody.
(Paras 39–48, 85(B))

---

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ss. 14, 15

Powers of NGT – Suo motu jurisdiction – Preventive and remedial role

National Green Tribunal is a sui generis expert body with wide jurisdiction not confined to adjudication of lis between parties. Tribunal has preventive, remedial and supervisory functions and is empowered to take suo motu cognizance of environmental issues. Tribunal is not restricted only to grounds raised in appeal.
(Paras 58–65, 85(C)(iii)–(iv))

---

Environmental Clearance – Appraisal process – Judicial review

Where the National Green Tribunal, on examination of record, finds non-consideration of material environmental aspects, absence of detailed ecological study, lack of district survey and replenishment assessment, and non-application of relevant guidelines by EAC and MoEF&CC, it is justified in keeping Environmental Clearance in abeyance and remitting the matter for fresh consideration. Such order does not suffer from perversity or jurisdictional error.
(Paras 51–57, 69, 85(C)(ii))

---

Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016

Applicability – Not confined to river sand mining

Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 apply not only to river sand mining but also to sand mining from other sources. The object of the Guidelines is ecological protection and sustainable exploitation of sand resources, and they cannot be narrowly construed.
(Paras 70–72, 85(C)(v))

---

Environmental Clearance – Grant prior to later notifications

Environmental Clearance granted prior to 2021 notification does not enjoy immunity if it is found to be contrary to the law, guidelines and statutory requirements prevailing at the time of grant. Prior grant does not preclude interference where illegality or non-compliance is established.
(Paras 75, 85(C)(vi))

---

Ex-post facto Environmental Clearance – Scope

Grant of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance is not a matter of right. It lies within the domain of the competent authority and must be considered strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view binding Supreme Court precedents, polluter-pays principle and environmental safeguards.
(Paras 76–84, 85(C)(vii))

---

Principles of Natural Justice

Where Environmental Clearance is only kept in abeyance and matter is remitted for reconsideration with opportunity of hearing to all parties, no violation of principles of natural justice is made out warranting interference under Article 226.
(Paras 73–74, 85(C)(i))

---

ANALYSIS (COURT-STYLE, ISSUE-WISE)

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition

The Court undertakes an extensive survey of constitutional jurisprudence to reaffirm that Article 226 jurisdiction forms part of the basic structure. While Section 22 of the NGT Act provides a statutory appeal, it does not bar writ jurisdiction. The Court emphasizes self-restraint, not lack of power. Given allegations of jurisdictional error and natural justice violation, coupled with long pendency, the writ petition was entertained.
(Paras 29–38)

---

2. Locus Standi under Section 16 NGT Act

The Court applies settled principles on “person aggrieved” and contextual interpretation of locus standi in environmental matters. Unlike private disputes, environmental litigation affects community rights. A village resident affected by mining operations has direct environmental interest and legal injury. Hence, the appeal before NGT was competent.
(Paras 39–48)

---

3. Nature and Scope of NGT’s Powers

Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court characterises NGT as an expert, sui generis forum whose mandate transcends traditional adversarial adjudication. Its powers under Sections 14 and 15 include preventive and restorative jurisdiction, enabling examination of broader ecological issues even beyond pleadings.
(Paras 58–65)

---

4. Validity of NGT’s Interference with EC

The Tribunal recorded detailed findings on ecological sensitivity, absence of district survey, lack of replenishment study, improper appraisal by EAC, mechanised mining concerns, and environmental impact over decades. The High Court finds these conclusions based on record and consistent with environmental jurisprudence. Keeping EC in abeyance is held to be proportionate and lawful.
(Paras 51–57, 69)

---

5. Applicability of SSMMG, 2016

Rejecting the petitioner’s narrow interpretation, the Court holds that the Guidelines are framed for sustainable sand mining in general, not limited to riverbeds. Ecological rationale governs applicability, not the source alone.
(Paras 70–72)

---

6. Ex-post facto Environmental Clearance

The Court recognises that while ex-post facto EC is not absolutely barred, it is exceptional and conditional. Its grant must comply with prevailing Supreme Court law and cannot override environmental protection principles. The issue is left open for competent authority at reconsideration stage.
(Paras 76–84)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A resident of an environmentally affected area has locus standi as a “person aggrieved” under Section 16 of the NGT Act to challenge Environmental Clearance.

2. The National Green Tribunal is a sui generis expert body with wide preventive, remedial and suo motu jurisdiction, not confined to issues expressly raised by parties.

3. Environmental Clearance granted without proper appraisal, ecological study, district survey, or compliance with applicable guidelines can be lawfully kept in abeyance by the NGT.

4. Availability of appeal under Section 22 of the NGT Act does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice is alleged.

5. Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 apply to sand mining from all sources, not merely river sand.

6. Ex-post facto Environmental Clearance is not a right and must be considered strictly in accordance with law and binding Supreme Court precedent.

Disciplinary proceedings after retirement — Impermissibility Disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only if they were initiated by issuance of charge memo while the employee was in service. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the employee has ceased to be in service on acceptance of voluntary retirement. (Paras 13, 20, 21)

Bank Employees — Disciplinary proceedings after retirement — Jurisdiction — Pension Regulations — Withholding / withdrawal of pension — Scope

Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 — Regulations 4, 6, 17 & 18
Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 — Regulations 2(i), 3 & 24
Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 — Regulations 45 & 48
Article 226 of Constitution of India

---

1. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement — Impermissibility
   Disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only if they were initiated by issuance of charge memo while the employee was in service. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the employee has ceased to be in service on acceptance of voluntary retirement.
   (Paras 13, 20, 21)

2. Date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings — Charge memo decisive
   Disciplinary proceedings are deemed to be initiated only upon issuance of charge memo / charge sheet and not from internal deliberations or preliminary steps taken by the employer.
   (Paras 13, 20, 21)

3. Applicability of Conduct and Discipline Regulations — Retired employees excluded
   Conduct Regulations and Discipline & Appeal Regulations apply only to “officer employees” as defined therein and do not extend to persons who ceased to be employees on the date of initiation of proceedings.
   (Paras 15, 19, 21)

4. Pension Regulations — Limited scope — Not a source of disciplinary power
   Pension Regulations do not independently confer power to initiate disciplinary proceedings; they only enable withholding or withdrawal of pension subject to strict compliance with procedure prescribed therein.
   (Paras 16, 17, 25)

5. Regulation 45 & 48 — Mandatory procedural safeguards
   Before withholding or withdrawing pension under Regulations 45 or 48, the competent authority must:
   (i) conduct proceedings strictly in accordance with Discipline & Appeal Regulations,
   (ii) establish grave misconduct distinct from ordinary misconduct, and
   (iii) consult the Board prior to passing final orders.
   Non-compliance renders the order void.
   (Paras 17, 18, 25)

6. Grave misconduct — Higher threshold than ‘misconduct’ under Conduct Regulations
   The expression “grave misconduct” under Chapter IX of Pension Regulations stands on a higher pedestal than “misconduct” under Conduct Regulations and cannot be presumed merely because misconduct is alleged or proved.
   (Paras 25)

7. Recovery of pecuniary loss from pension — Preconditions
   Recovery under Regulation 48 is permissible only after determination of actual pecuniary loss in duly instituted proceedings and after prior consultation with the Board; speculative or unquantified loss cannot justify recovery.
   (Paras 9(f), 25)

8. Penalty not enumerated in Rules — Illegality
   Withdrawal of one-third pension permanently is not a penalty prescribed under Regulation 4 of Discipline & Appeal Regulations; disciplinary authority has no inherent power to invent or impose penalties not contemplated by statute.
   (Paras 23, 25)

9. Alternative remedy — No bar where lack of jurisdiction established
   Availability of statutory appeal or review does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction where the authority acted wholly without jurisdiction.
   (Paras 22)

10. Remand to disciplinary authority — Not warranted when proceedings void ab initio
    Where initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself is without jurisdiction, the question of remand for reconsideration of penalty does not arise.
    (Paras 23, 24)

---

ANALYSIS

The petitioner, a Senior Manager of the respondent bank, sought voluntary retirement, which was accepted retrospectively with effect from 20.01.2003. The charge memo was issued only on 26.08.2003 / 02.09.2003, i.e., after the petitioner had ceased to be an employee.

The Court examined the interplay between three distinct regulatory frameworks:

1. Conduct Regulations & Discipline & Appeal Regulations — governing misconduct, penalties, and disciplinary procedure applicable exclusively to serving “officer employees”.

2. Pension Regulations — intended only to regulate pensionary benefits, with limited power to withhold or withdraw pension subject to stringent safeguards.

3. Service Regulations — permitting continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement only where such proceedings were initiated before retirement.

The Court held that no disciplinary proceedings were pending or initiated prior to retirement, as initiation occurs only upon issuance of charge memo. Consequently, invocation of Conduct and DA Regulations against a retired employee was held to be without jurisdiction.

Even on the assumption that Pension Regulations were invoked, the Court found multiple fatal defects:

• absence of Board consultation,

• lack of determination of “grave misconduct” as distinct from ordinary misconduct,

• absence of quantified pecuniary loss,

• and imposition of a penalty not contemplated by any regulation.

The Court further clarified that pension regulations cannot be used as a surrogate disciplinary code to impose penalties post-retirement.

Given the jurisdictional defect at the threshold, the existence of appellate remedies was held immaterial, and the entire proceedings were quashed.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a bank employee after acceptance of voluntary retirement, as Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations apply only to serving employees; Pension Regulations do not confer independent disciplinary power and permit withholding or withdrawal of pension only upon strict compliance with prescribed procedure, proof of grave misconduct, prior Board consultation, and determination of actual pecuniary loss—any penalty imposed dehors the statutory framework is illegal and without jurisdiction.

Scheduled Tribes — Konda Kapu — Cancellation of caste certificate — Scope of inquiry — Natural justice — Burden of proof

Scheduled Tribes — Konda Kapu — Cancellation of caste certificate — Scope of inquiry — Natural justice — Burden of proof

A.P. (SCs, STs & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 — Sections 5, 7, 11 & 12 — A.P. (SCs, STs & BCs) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 — Rules 8 & 9 — Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India

1. Presumption of validity of community certificates — Burden on State to disprove
   Once a community certificate is issued by a competent authority, there is a prima facie presumption of its validity, and the burden lies upon the authorities disputing the social status to establish, by cogent and legal evidence, that the holder does not belong to the claimed Scheduled Tribe.
   (Paras 14, 18)

2. District Level Scrutiny Committee report — Non-supply — Violation of natural justice
   Reliance upon a report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, without furnishing a copy thereof to the affected person and without affording opportunity to rebut the same, amounts to violation of audi alteram partem and vitiates the consequential orders.
   (Paras 14, 19)

3. Inter-caste marriages — Determination of caste of children
   In cases of inter-caste marriage, it is settled that children acquire the social status of the father, and marriage with persons of another community cannot, by itself, be a determinative factor to deny Scheduled Tribe status.
   (Paras 12, 16, 18)

4. Probative value of land records vis-à-vis adjudications under tribal regulations
   Old land records describing caste as Kapu (OC), by themselves, cannot override adjudications under Land Transfer Regulations and proceedings wherein ancestors were declared tribals belonging to Konda Kapu community.
   (Paras 17, 18)

5. Failure of petitioner to adduce evidence — Effect
   Mere non-production of additional documentary evidence by the petitioner during inquiry does not absolve the authorities of their obligation to discharge the burden of disproving Scheduled Tribe status, particularly when prior adjudications and certificates exist in favour of the family.
   (Paras 18, 19)

6. Appellate authority — Mechanical confirmation — Impropriety
   Confirmation of cancellation order by the appellate authority, placing predominant reliance on old land records while ignoring binding adjudications and family caste determinations, is arbitrary and unsustainable.
   (Paras 11, 17, 19)

---

ANALYSIS

The dispute arose out of cancellation of the petitioner’s Konda Kapu (Scheduled Tribe) certificate, initially triggered by an allegation received by the University authorities and pursued through the Tribal Welfare Department and the District Level Scrutiny Committee.

Although notices were issued and an inquiry was purportedly conducted, the Court found two foundational defects:

1. Procedural illegality — The report of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, which formed the backbone of the Collector’s decision, was never supplied to the petitioner. The Collector as well as the Government relied upon a document that “has not seen the light of day” insofar as the petitioner was concerned. This directly offended the principles of natural justice under Section 5 of the Act, 1993 and Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules, 1997.

2. Substantive misdirection — The authorities attached greater probative value to land records of 1938 showing “Kapu (OC)” while ignoring binding determinations under Land Transfer Regulations (LTRP Nos.43 of 1966, 30 of 1971 and 250 of 2004), where the petitioner’s paternal grandmother and father were declared tribals belonging to Konda Kapu community.

The Court reiterated settled law that children acquire the caste of the father and that inter-caste marriages cannot be used as a disqualifying criterion. Further, it emphasized that the burden of proof lies squarely on the State, and failure of the petitioner to produce further evidence cannot justify cancellation when substantial prior material exists in his favour.

The appellate authority’s approach was found to be mechanical, arbitrary, and legally untenable, as it failed to reconcile earlier tribal adjudications with the impugned conclusions.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Cancellation of a Scheduled Tribe community certificate is vitiated when based on a District Level Scrutiny Committee report not furnished to the affected person, and when the authorities fail to discharge the burden of disproving tribal status, particularly in the face of prior adjudications declaring the petitioner’s ancestors as tribals; inter-caste marriage and selective reliance on old land records cannot, by themselves, negate Scheduled Tribe status, and children inherit the social status of the father.

Employees of APSTEP, being a State instrumentality under Article 12 and governed by Government policy, are entitled to enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years with effect from 02.06.2014. Any retirement at 58 years after the said date is arbitrary and illegal, and such employees are entitled to continuation in service up to 60 years with all consequential benefits in terms of Government Orders and Supreme Court directions.

Service Law — Age of superannuation — Enhancement from 58 to 60 years

Employees working in societies and institutions falling under Article 12 of the Constitution and included in Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, are entitled to enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in terms of Government policy and statutory prescriptions.
(Paras 3–4, 8)

---

State instrumentalities — Article 12

Andhra Pradesh Society for Training and Employment Promotion (APSTEP), being a State instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution, is bound by Government policy decisions relating to service conditions of employees.
(Para 3)

---

Government Orders — Binding effect

G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 08.08.2017 enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years with effect from 02.06.2014, and G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 04.06.2020 extending the said benefit to APSTEP and DSSTEP employees, are binding and enforceable.
(Paras 4–6, 8)

---

Parity — Similarly situated employees

Employees similarly situated to those covered by the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10273 of 2017 and batch are entitled to identical service benefits including continuation till 60 years with all consequential benefits.
(Paras 5–6, 8)

---

Illegal retirement — Superannuation at 58 years

Retirement of employees at the age of 58 years after 02.06.2014, despite policy decisions and Government Orders enhancing the age to 60 years, is arbitrary and unsustainable.
(Paras 4–6, 8)

---

Reinstatement — Consequential benefits

Employees who were prematurely retired at 58 years and who had remaining service up to 60 years are entitled to continuation in service and all consequential benefits, if not already paid.
(Paras 6, 8)

---

ANALYSIS

The writ petition challenged the notice of retirement dated 01.05.2017 issued by the 6th respondent retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years, contending that the action was contrary to statutory provisions and Government policy enhancing the age of superannuation to 60 years (Para 1).

The Court noted that APSTEP is a State instrumentality under Article 12 and is also included in Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, making it amenable to constitutional discipline and Government service policy (Para 3).

The Government of Andhra Pradesh had taken a policy decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years with effect from 02.06.2014, issuing G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 08.08.2017, granting in-principle approval to extend the benefit to Schedule IX and X institutions (Para 4).

The Court relied heavily on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.08.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.10273 of 2017 and batch, wherein it was categorically held that all employees who attained 58 years on or after 02.06.2014 are entitled to protection of service up to 60 years with all consequential benefits (Para 5).

Further, the Court noted issuance of G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 04.06.2020, whereby the Government explicitly extended the benefit of enhanced superannuation age to APSTEP and DSSTEP employees, including reinstatement of those prematurely retired, subject to amendment of service rules (Para 6).

The respondents did not dispute the applicability of these Government Orders (Para 7).

In view of the binding nature of the Government Orders and the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to continuation in service up to 60 years along with all consequential benefits, if not already extended (Para 8).

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Employees of APSTEP, being a State instrumentality under Article 12 and governed by Government policy, are entitled to enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years with effect from 02.06.2014. Any retirement at 58 years after the said date is arbitrary and illegal, and such employees are entitled to continuation in service up to 60 years with all consequential benefits in terms of Government Orders and Supreme Court directions.