IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22285 of 1999 Between: 1 Govt.of India Ministry of Defence Rep.by its Secretary New Delhi. 2 Govt.of India Ministry of Revenue, Rep.by its Secretary New Delhi. 3 Engineer-in-chief Armu Head Quarters New Delhi 4 Chief Engineer South Command Puna Maharastra State 5 Chief Engineer Navy Station Road Visakhapatnam A.P 6 Commander Works Engineer Station Road Visakhapatnam A.P ..... PETITIONER(S) AND M.Nookayya S/o.Late Venkanna,M.E.S.No.147469 Mazdoor 'D' Category Naval Depot Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records in O.A.No.1629/97 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and quash the order dt.31-3-1999 in the said O.A. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22285 OF 1999 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed by the official respondents in OA No.1629 of 1997 which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, by order dated 31-3-1999. The applicants-respondents here filed the said OA No.1629 of 1997 to set aside the order dated 8-11-1995 passed by the Chief Engineer (Navy), Visakhapatnam-5th petitioner herein. By the order dated 8-11-1995 the 5th petitioner rejected the representation made by the applicant-respondent herein for In-situ promotion on the ground he did not fulfill the conditions laid down for In-situ promotion as per the memo dated 13-9-1991 issued in terms of Government of India MF No.301. 2. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter, by the impugned order set aside the order dated 8-11-1995 passed by the 5th petitioner herein and accordingly directed that the case of the applicant be considered for promotion as per the In-situ promotion scheme within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy thereof in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed by the official respondents in the OA. 3. Heard the learned Asst. Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order. 4. Admittedly, the applicant-respondent herein was appointed to the post of Mazdoor in the Ministry of Defence under Chief Engineer Dry Dock Project, Vishakapatnam, during the years 1972-73 and worked as such till 1976. It is stated that Dry Dock Project was completed in January, 1978 and as per the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, instructions issued, the surplus staff on completion of Dry Dock Project have to be adjusted in various establishment. It is stated that the applicant was initially transferred to CWE, Dry Dock Project and thereafter he was transferred to GE (ND), Vishakapatnam, and his pay was fixed at a higher stage taking into account the earlier service rendered by him in Dry Dock Project. 5. When once it is found that the organization to which the applicant is transferred is part of the organization in which the applicant worked as Mazdoor and in fact he was absorbed on permanent basis and transferred to GE (ND), Vishakapatnam, only on the basis of his previous service rendered in Dry Dock Project, as observed by the Tribunal, the applicant is entitled to be considered for In-situ promotion in accordance with the instructions issued in memo dated 13-9-1991 in terms of Government of India MF No.301. 6. This being the position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. In the circumstances the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated: 18th June, 2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{CHP}