THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO DATED: 22-06-2010 WRIT PETITION No. 26693 OF 2009 Between: The Dy. Educational Officer, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND C. Saidulu .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26693 OF 2009 ORDER: (per Sri Goda Raghuram, J) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services – I for the petitioners. The record discloses service of notice on respondent No.1 who is the affected party and the applicant in O.A No. 2003 of 2007. There is however no representation on his behalf when the matter is taken up for hearing. The State has filed the writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 02-12-2008 of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A No. 2003 of 2007. The relevant facts leading to this writ petition (as pleaded in the writ petition) may briefly be recorded: The 1st respondent herein was temporarily appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in a government school and was promoted as a School Assistant on 01-01-1976. He possessed the qualification of B.A and acquired B.Ed qualification on 25-05-1971. He was entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.320 - 580 with effect from 01-01-1976, the date he was promoted as School Assistant. The 1st respondent was accorded the benefits of automatic advancement and the pay scales relevant to such advancements on completion of 10, 15 and 24 years of service reckoning the period of 10, 15 and 24 years from the date of his initial appointment. However, the 1st respondent’s entitlement to the benefits of the automatic advancement scheme was revised to be with effect from 01-01-1986, 01-01-1991 and 01-01-2000, in the pay scales of Rs.750 – 1300, Rs.900 - 1500 and Rs.5980 - 12100 respectively. The excess pay drawn was ordered to be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent having retired on superannuation on 31-05-2002. The amount ordered to be recovered from the 1st respondent was Rs.2,70,678/-. Aggrieved by the recovery order, the 1st respondent filed O.A No. 2003 of 2007 which was allowed by the judgment impugned dated 01-12-2008. While allowing the OA of the 1st respondent, the Tribunal held that in a number of earlier OAs, it had concluded, on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court holding the provisions of Act 14 of 1991 to be prospective, that the benefits already given to persons who do not possess the requisite qualifications could not be taken away nor recovered. It requires to be noticed that before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners herein it was contended that the 1st respondent having attained superannuation on 31-05-2002 and having failed to question the recovery proceedings dated 18-04-2001 was not entitled to relief as his claim was belated. There does not appear to have been a serious contest as to the disentitlement of the 1st respondent to the benefits of the automatic advancement scheme nor as to the faulty grant of such benefits to the 1st respondent, by earlier orders. Be that as it may. It is not in dispute that the entitlement of the 1st respondent to the automatic advancement scheme benefits on completion of 10, 15 and 24 years of service accrues with effect from the date he was promoted to the post of School Assistant viz., 01-01- 1976. However, by administrative error, the 1st respondent was granted the automatic advancement benefits reckoning the commencing point for computation of such benefits from the date of the initial appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher and the date of his acquisition of B.Ed qualification i.e., 1971. It is also an established fact that the recoveries were made from the terminal benefits due to the 1st respondent, on his retirement in the year 2002. The 1st respondent however challenged the recovery proceedings in 2007. The Tribunal ought not to have entertained such belated claim as the 1st respondent has forfeited the right to challenge the recoveries on account of laches and delay and in view of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is a settled principle in administrative law that delay and laches or the period of limitation wherever prescribed by the statute is a solvent of remedies and that even fundamental rights cannot be enforced if a litigative action is barred by the principles of laches and delay or the statute of limitation. The Tribunal erred in granting relief to the 1st respondent without considering the aspect of laches. Even substantively, the 1st respondent was disentitled to the automatic advancement scheme benefits on completion of the 10, 15 and 24 years service reckoned from the date of his acquisition of B.Ed qualification and while working as a Secondary Grade Teacher but was entitled only with effect from the date of his promotion as School Assistant i.e., from 01-01-1976. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances without costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J R. KANTHA RAO, J 22-06-2010 ks