THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23197 of 2011 August 30, 2011 Between: The Vice Chairman, Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District And another ... Petitioners And Ch.L.Narasimha Rao, aged 46 years, Driver And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23197 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ petition by the Vice Chairman and the Secretary of Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (the Urban Authority, for brevity) is against the order dated 16.3.2011 in O.A.No.1507 of 2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, directing the petitioners herein to grant annual grade increments to the respondents 1 to 16 (the applicants before the Tribunal) and further directing to extend the benefit of further pay revision to them from time to time. There is no dispute that the respondents 1 to 16 are working as drivers and last grade employees in the Urban Authority. They were initially appointed as NMR employees. By the resolution No.122, dated 30.4.2003 and resolution No.129, dated 12.5.2003, the Urban Authority extended the time scale of pay in the last grade service along with usual allowances like D.A., H.R.A., and C.A., to the respondents. The revised pay scales, 2005 were also extended to them. But they were denied the annual grade increments subsequently. Therefore, they filed the O.A. seeking a direction to the Urban Authority the two reliefs granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the question of the right of the NMR employees working as last grade employees to seek annual grade increments and the scales of periodical pay revisions as and when pay scales are revised. In O.A.No.7915 of 2002, it was held that the employees are eligible for periodical increments. The said order was assailed in W.P.No.27214 of 2005. By order dated 23.8.2006, this Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.7915 of 2002. It is now brought to our notice that against the stay order, Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No.6422 of 2007 was filed before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. In view of this, while allowing O.A.No.1507 of 2011, the learned Tribunal followed the order in O.A.No.7915 of 2002 and issued the directions. This Court heard the Standing Counsel for the Urban Authority and the Counsel for the respondents 1 to 16 (caveators). There is no dispute that the order of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.7915 of 2002 involving similar question has now been confirmed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) August 30, 2011 YS