IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.5820 of 2010 Between: The Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad and two others .. Petitioners AND R.N. Sar and two others .. Respondents ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad) Heard the learned counsel representing Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. No notice is being ordered to the respondents as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 30-07-2009 in O.A.No.769 of 2006 is under challenge at the instance of the official respondents therein and the Central Administrative Tribunal by virtue of the said order directed the respondents therein to reconsider the representations of the applicants in the light of the decision taken by the Director General, GSI, Calcutta, in respect of Sri N.L. Gera and also the orders passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No.577 of 1999 in the case of Sri K.C. Joshi and others vs. Union of India and to dispose of the representations in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The grievance of the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal was against the rejection of the request made by the applicants for permission to give revised option in accordance with the provisions of the O.M.No.7 (52)-E.III/86, dated 27-05-1988 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. The applicants were able to convince the Central Administrative Tribunal that Sri N.L. Gera, Geologist was extended the concession of giving revised option and that the petitioners in O.A.No.577 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal also stand on the same footing to whom a similar benefit was extended by the order of the Tribunal dated 06-01-2000. The official respondents in the O.A. seek to challenge the orders of the Tribunal in the present writ petition on various grounds, but there is no denial of the fact that the order in O.A.No.577 of 1999, which is a decade old, had become final and that the petitioners therein stand on a similar footing as the petitioners before the Tribunal in this case. The Official Memorandum dated 27-05-1988 was admittedly given by the Ministry of Finance giving option to the officers to change their option and it is under the shelter of the said official memorandum, that some persons changed their option by availing the benefit of exercising revised option. The grounds relied on by the writ petitioners do not suggest as to how Sri N.L. Gera or K.C. Joshi and 12 others, found by the Tribunal to be standing on similar footing as the petitioners before it, are different in any manner, for extending any concession to them, which was denied by the respondents to the petitioners before the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, when what all the Tribunal directed is extending the same treatment to similarly situated persons in respect of the option concerning the Pay Scales, the order cannot be considered improper or illegal and cannot be interfered with by exercising the restricted jurisdiction of judicial review in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 25-03-2010 _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Ksn