IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2094 of 2004 Between: 1. The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another. ..... APPELLANTS AND R. Brahma Chary. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :2094 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The officials of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’), respondents in Writ Petition No.3003 of 1997, are in appeal aggrieved by order dated 14.9.2004 passed by the learned single Judge disposing of the said writ petition directing the APSTRC to rectify the anomaly in the pay fixation of the respondent- writ petitioner and to fix his pay properly, not being below the scale of pay of his juniors V.A. Reddy and C.V. Subba Reddy. The respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant (Purchase) in the year 1979 along with V.A Reddy and C.V. Subba Reddy. However, being senior to them, he was promoted as Senior Assistant (Purchase) on 8.1.1990. At the time of filing of the writ petition, V.A. Reddy was still continuing as a Junior Assistant while Subba Reddy had been promoted as Senior Assistant (Purchase) in January, 1995. The grievance of the respondent-writ petitioner before the learned single Judge was that his scale of pay was fixed lower than that of V.A. Reddy and C.V. Subba Reddy inspite of his seniority and earlier promotion. The defence of the APSRTC was that though the respondent- writ petitioner was senior to the other two employees and was promoted earlier in time i.e., on 8.1.1990, the other two employees who continued as Junior Assistants (Purchase) were granted a special grade stagnation increment upon completion of 12 years of service in the same post and accordingly, their pay scale was increased over that of the respondent-writ petitioner. The specific stand of the APSRTC was that under circular dated 9.3.1990 issued by it, the respondent-writ petitioner ought to have made a representation with regard to the refixation of his pay before 31.3.1990 and as he had failed to do so, his request under representation dated 16.8.1996 was belated and was liable to be rejected. A reading of the proceedings dated 10.12.1996, impugned in the writ petition, would show that the other ground for rejection of the respondent’s request for refixation of his pay in view of the anomaly was that his representation was not made within a period of one month from the date of fixation of the pay of his junior, as per the circular dated 6.10.1990. It is stated that Subba Reddy’s pay was fixed upon his promotion as Senior Assistant (Purchase) on 19.5.1995 and therefore, the respondent-writ petitioner ought to have submitted his representation before 18.6.1995, whereas his first representation was made on 29.1.1996 with a delay of seven months and seven days. On these grounds, the respondent’s request was rejected. Once the APSRTC admits to the facts aforestated, there is no justification for granting a lesser pay scale to the respondent-writ petitioner, who was admittedly senior most amongst the three and was granted promotion earliest. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, it is for the A.P.S.R.T.C., being the pay master, to notice the anomaly in the pay fixation and rectify the same. Such benefit cannot be denied to the respondent-writ petitioner on the sole ground that the same is barred by time as per the circulars dated 9.3.1990 and 16.10.1990. Unless the APSRTC is in a position to demonstrate that the respondent-writ petitioner, being actually aware of the anomaly in his pay fixation, failed to make a representation within reasonable time, his representation cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge directing the APSRTC to rectify the anomaly in the pay fixation of the respondent-writ petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Date: 9th November, 2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2094 of 2004 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) 9th November, 2009