HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 4027 OF 2001 Tuesday, the Sixth Day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between E.Madhava Rao Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi and others Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 27.6.2000 disposing O.A. No. 993 of 1999 filed by the petitioner herein with the direction that he shall be given relief as ordered in LPA No. 50 of 1981 pending before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner retired from service on 31.7.1996 as Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts with the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000. It is stated that the post of Senior Accounts Officer and Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts carries the same pay scale. The petitioner claims that since he is similarly placed like that of P.S.R.K.Sastry, promoted to IDAS in the pay scale of 3000-4500. The petitioner herein submitted representations to the respondent authorities to consider his case for fixation of his pay in the scale of Rs.3000- 4500 on par with Mr. P.S.R.K.Sastry, inasmuch as after assuming the post Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts, he performed the duties of Supervising Senior Accounts Officers. The Deputy Controller General of Defence Accounts has informed that the judgments pronounced by the Tribunals/Courts cannot automatically be applicable to similarly placed persons unless there are specific directions to that effect and informed the petitioner that the benefit given to P.S.R.K. Sastry, applicant in OA No. 469 of 1997 cannot automatically be given to the petitioner and his case can be considered after the outcome of L.P.A. No. 50 of 1981, pending before the Delhi High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the above O.A. It is the case of the petitioner that he is similarly placed with that of Sri P.S.R.K. Sastry, which is disputed by the respondents. It is their contention that after completion of two years of service as Senior Accounts Officer and Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts, one stagnation increment is admissible, but the petitioner herein was not considered, inasmuch as he had not completed two years of service in the said categories. The Tribunal, by the order impugned herein, has disposed of the O.A. holding that the petitioner shall be given the relief that may be ordered in L.P.A. 50 of 1981 pending before Delhi High Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed by the applicant in the above O.A. The Tribunal, by the order impugned, in paragraph No.15 has observed thus: “In case the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi, decides the L.P.A. 50/81 in favour of the Officers, then such benefits shall be extended to the applicant. However, the applicant, in such an event, be eligible for the benefits only from 5.7.1998 i.e. one year prior to the date of filing this application. This application was filed on 5.7.1999…” Thus the Tribunal, having considered the factual and legal aspect of the lis, has rightly observed that the petitioner shall be given the relief as ordered in LPA No. 50 of 1981, though the respondents have denied that the petitioner is not entitled to be treated on par with Mr. P.S.R.K. Sastry. In view of the well- considered order passed by the Tribunal and the relief granted to the petitioner, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice P.S.Narayana July 06, 2010 MAS.