THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI SANJAY KUMAR WA No.1438 of 2005 Between Md. Mahmamood v. APSRTC and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI SANJAY KUMAR WA No.1438 of 2005 Oral Judgment (Per Sri GM, J) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 15-6-2005 passed in Writ Petition No.17601 of 1998. The appellant-petitioner joined the service of the respondents-Corporation as driver 23-2-1986 and his services were regularized with effect from 2-9-1986. While so, there was a revision in the pay scales in the month of April 1994 with effect from 1.4.1993. The petitioner exercised option to come into the revised pay scales and according to him he gave his willingness to come on to the pay scales with effect from 1.9.1993. However, it was found that the option form was altered by altering the date as 1.4.1993. According to the petitioner by virtue of this alteration in the option form, the petitioner was deprived of one increment and the employees, who joined with him are drawing more salary than the petitioner. The respondents-Corporation have fixed the date as 1.4.1993 in the revised pay scales instead of 1.9.1993. In fact, on account of revised pay scales, the petitioner is entitled for one additional increment because his date of regularization was 2.9.1986. The petitioner filed a representation before the third respondent, which was forwarded to the second and first respondents on 20.10.1995 and 15.2.1996 respectively. It is also further case of the petitioner that the third respondent had recommended and forwarded the application of the petitioner and made an endorsement that it is a genuine case. In spite of the recommendation made by the third respondent, the first and second respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner through the proceedings dated 23-4-1998, and hence the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition N o.17601 of 1998 before this Court. A learned single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the complaint made by the petitioner as to the alteration of the date in the option form seems to be an afterthought only to gain advantage as found by the enquiry officer and therefore declined to entertain the Writ Petition. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen from the record that an enquiry was conducted and it was found that the head clerk of Yadagirigutta Depot was responsible for altering the date of option. In this view of the matter, in our view, the learned single Judge having accepted the contention of the petitioner that the there was alteration in the option form exercised by the petitioner from 1-9-1993 to 1-4-1993 and that enquiry was also initiated in pursuance of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, ought not to have held that the complaint made by the appellant is an afterthought only to gain advantage. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the option exercised with effect from 1-9-1993 and to grant benefits for which he is entitled under law. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR KK/19-10-2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI SANJAY KUMAR WA No.1438 of 2005 19-10-2011