IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15378 of 2008 Between: T.P.Sivaram Prasad S/o.Late Venkataratnam Tha Thandava Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd Payakaraopet, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries & Commerce (Sugar) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad rep.by its Principal Secretary 2 The Commissioner & Director of Sugars and Cane Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Shekkar Bhavan,Basheerbagh,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the recommendations of PRC-2005 to the petitioner on par with the other Government employees in the State of Andhra Pradesh as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to implement the PRC-2005 to the petitioner as recommended by the 2nd respondent herein vide letter dated 13.7.2007 and 10.7.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 15378 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is functioning as the Managing Director of the Thandava Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd., Payakaraopet, Visakhapatnam District. At present, he is in the pay scale of Rs.13,450/- to 19,150/-. The corresponding scale is said to have been revised by the 5th Pay Commission. The Managing Directors of various Cooperative Sugar Factories, in the State, have submitted representations to the Commissioner & Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner-second respondent with a prayer to extend the benefit of 5th Pay Commission. The second respondent, in turn, addressed a latter, dated 29-03-2006 ,to the first respondent seeking necessary permission. The same was considered by the Government and vide memo, dated 21-02-2007, the first respondent refused to accord permission. It was stated that since the Cooperative Sugar Factories, in the State, are in losses and are under revival packages, it is not, at all, feasible to enhance the salaries to the Managing Directors. The Managing Directors appear to have continued their efforts with the Government- first respondent, even after rejection of their claim. The first respondent on 05-07- 2007 addressed a letter inviting remarks from the second respondent on a representation, dated 16-06-2006, submitted by the Managing Directors. The second respondent, in turn, offered his remarks on 13-07-2007 and 10-07-2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken on the remarks offered by the second respondent. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit, together with supporting documents, is filed. In fact, the stand taken by the first respondent in their communication, dated 21-02-2007, is reiterated, and ultimately, it is urged that in the present scenario, it is not at all feasible to accede to the request of the petitioner and other Managing Directors. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Industries. Basically, it is for the Management of the concerned Sugar Factory to take a decision in the matter of fixation or revision of emoluments. However, in view of the pervasive control of the Government, its approval is necessary for any enhancement in the revision of pay scales. The Managements of the Cooperative Sugar Factories appear to have recommended for adoption of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission for the Managing Directors also. In fact, at one stage, the second respondent forwarded the representation of the petitioner and other Managing Directors and stated that the financial viability would permit the revision. The first respondent has turned down the request vide memo, dated 21-02-2007. The matter must have rested at that. However, on persistent efforts made by the Managing Directors, the first respondent called for remarks from the second respondent and once again remarks in turn, were submitted twice, in a span of two years. The reaction of the first respondent is due on the same. Having called for the remarks from the second respondent, the first respondent cannot remain silent on the matter. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the remarks offered by the second respondent vide their communication, dated 13-07-2007 and 10-07-2008, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as a direction either way, in the context of revision of pay scales. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 11-08-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o KLP