THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.25025 of 2011 Date: 14.10.2011 Between: M. Subba Reddy and another … Petitioners AND The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and 2 others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.25025 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G. Shankar) The order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (The Tribunal, for short) in O.A.No.165 of 2006 is assailed before us. The writ petitioners are Retired Treasury Officers. The writ petitioners and others initially were recruited as Junior Accountants between 1963 and 1969 in the Treasuries and Accounts Department in Chittoor District. They were later promoted as Senior Accountants during 1976-1981. 2. While so, one Smt. D. Saraswathi, who was recruited as a Junior Assistant way back in 1947 and who was senior to the petitioners and several other employees, could not be promoted as she did not pass Part-I and Part-II of the Account Test for Subordinate officers, so much so, she was not promoted for over 15 years. She was granted special grade post scale and special promotion post scale after she completed 10 years of service and 15 years of service respectively. She was ultimately given notional promotion as Senior Accountant with effect from 13.07.1983, by which time she passed the Accounts Test. 3. The scale of Smt. D. Saraswathi was fixed at ` 850/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.1984 under F.R.No.22-B. This raised spate of litigation. The petitioners and various other employees, who became Senior Accountants prior to Smt. D. Sarasawathi and thus claimed seniority over Smt. D. Saraswathi as Senior Accountants, contended that their salary should be stepped up on par with the salary of Smt. D.Sarasawathi. 4. Accepting their demand, the Treasuries and Accounts Department stepped up the salary of various employees including the writ petitioners to ` 850/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.04.1984, through proceedings of the District Treasury Officer, Chittoor, dated 03.10.1991. The second respondent, through proceedings dated 30.06.1992, however, stepped down the pay of these employees and directed for recovery of the arrears drawn by the employees on account of the stepping up of their pay. In doing so, the Director of Treasuries and Accounts did not issue show cause notice to the writ petitioners and other employees. As many as 40 employees including the petitioners herein filed O.A.No.4505 of 1992 before the Tribunal challenging the stepping down of their pay without due notice to them. O.A.No.4505 of 1992 was allowed. The second respondent was directed to issue show cause notice to the employees and dispose of the matter taking into consideration the explanation offered by the employees. 5. The second respondent accordingly issued a show cause notice on 02.09.1992 and issued orders on 21.05.1993 stepping down the pay of the employees and also for the recovery of the excess amount paid to the employees. Impugning the order of the second respondent, some of the employees filed O.A.No.2712 of 1993 before the Tribunal. It is pertinent to notice that neither of the petitioners was a petitioner in O.A.No.2712 of 1993. The Tribunal upheld the order of the second respondent dated 21.05.1993 stepping down the pay of the employees. The Tribunal, however, directed not to recover excess amounts paid over and above the salary for the period from 01.04.1984 till 01.05.1993 on which date, stay was granted by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2712 of 1993. W.P.No.15231 of 2000 was filed by the State against the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2712 of 1993. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Thus ended the main controversy. On account of the orders in O.A.No.2712 of 1993, as confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.15231 of 2000, the stepped up salary of the applicants in O.A.No.2712 of 1993 was stepped down. The recovery of excess pay was not effected for the period from 01.04.1984 till 01.05.1993. 6. The present petitioners more or less seek for the application of the same position for them. Their claim is that the excess pay drawn by them should not be recovered for the period till 01.05.1993 although their pay also might be stepped down along with the other employees. The petitioners were not parties to the W.P.No.15231 of 2000. Their claim that they made representations to the authorities that the excess pay drawn by them might not be recovered till 01.05.1993 was found to be without substance. Considering that there is any amount of latches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed their claim. 7. It is true that the Tribunal earlier passed orders directing that the incorrect stepping up of the pay of various employees shall be stepped down but the excess pay drawn by the applicants in O.A.No.2712 of 1993 should not be recovered till 01.05.1993. The petitioners were not parties to O.A.No.2712 of 1993. O.A.No.165 of 2006 was filed nearly a decade after the disposal of the case by this Court in W.P.No.15231 of 2000. No explanation is forthcoming from the petitioners why the O.A.No.165 of 2006 was filed after a delay of about six years. Under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the application for redressal is maintainable if filed within the period of one year only. The petitioners have not even explained why the application was filed before the Tribunal with considerable delay. In this background, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in concluding that there were latches on the part of the petitioners in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court expeditiously. We find that the order of the Tribunal was perfectly justified. Where the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any apparent error, we see no merits in the writ petition. 8. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) Date: 14.10.2011 Isn/Kh