THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.369 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as N.M.R. in the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board in the year 1974 and thereafter, he was promoted as Lineman. The next higher post is Line Inspector. The petitioner was denied promotion to that post even while his juniors in the post of Lineman were promoted. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13439 of 1991 challenging his supersession. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.12.2002 directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion as per the seniority list, dated 31.03.1990. In compliance with the said directions, the Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, the successor of A.P.S.E.B., passed orders, dated 12.02.2003, promoting the petitioner as Line Inspector in the time scale of Rs.5320-Rs.9710. Through the same order, he was placed above his junior by name M.V.Subba Raju. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 30.09.2003, claiming arrears of salary. He contends that once he was promoted to the post of Line Inspector with retrospective effect, he is entitled for arrears of salary. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner started working as Line Inspector only on being promoted and in that view of the matter, he is not entitled for any higher emoluments anterior to that date. According to them, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed giving credit to the total period. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only grievance pointed out by the petitioner in W.P.No.13439 of 1991 was supersession of his seniority in the matter of promotion to the post of Line Inspector. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the respondents have notionally promoted the petitioner with an anterior date. They have not only restored the seniority of the petitioner, but also have extended the benefit of pay scale on par with his juniors. He did not make any grievance as to the arrears of salary. Things would have been different altogether in case the petitioner prayed for the relief of arrears of salary also in the writ petition filed by him earlier. He cannot split his grievances and pray for arrears after his grievance about the supersession was redressed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.11.2010 kdl