THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23393 of 2011 August 04, 2011 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Petitioners And B.Satyanarayana, Part Time Lecturer in Chemistry, Government Junior College, Kosigi, Mahaboobnagar District And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23393 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The second respondent is a post-graduate in chemistry. He filed O.A.No.4209 of 2004 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for a direction to consider his case for regularization of services in accordance with the Government guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.221, dated 20.6.1995. He also prayed to grant minimum time-scale of pay. He alleged that he worked as a part-time lecturer from September, 1995 to October, 2008 and that he was not paid the remuneration from January, 2004 to October, 2008 for 938 days. The application was opposed by the petitioners herein inter alia contending that the petitioner did not attend to duties from 10.1.2004 till May, 2004 and, therefore, he is not entitled for remuneration for that period. They also opposed the prayer for regularization. The learned Tribunal, by impugned order, denied the relief of regularization of the first respondent but issued a direction for payment of remuneration for 938 days during the period from January, 2004 to October, 2008. Against the order passed by the learned Tribunal on 27.11.2009, after lapse of two years, the petitioner chose to file the instant writ petition. The only ground urged by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I is that the direction of the learned Tribunal to pay the remuneration for January, 2004 to May, 2004 suffers from error and liable to be set aside. We are afraid we cannot consider the submission. The learned Tribunal passed orders on 27.11.2009. The delay in approaching this Court is not properly explained. Secondly, it is a question of fact and that the learned Tribunal considered the material placed before it and came to the conclusion that for a period of 938 days, the first respondent was not paid remuneration. If there is any error of fact, nothing prevented the petitioner to move review petition. They did not do so. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) August 19, 2011 YS