THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.1135 OF 2002 Dated: .09.2011 Between: Mohd. Qaisar Bagan …Petitioner And Mahabubia Panjatan Junior College, Matwada, Warangal, rep. by its Secretary & Correspondent and another …Respondents. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.1135 OF 2002 ORDER:- In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is claiming two reliefs. The first is that his service in the unaided post of lab attender in the first respondent-college from 1-8-1978 to 1-7-1988 should be counted for the purpose of fixation of pay, promotion and pension and other benefits. The second is also the same relief but it is in respect of his earlier service in the aided post of watchman from 1-7-1970 to 1-8-1978 in the school run by the first respondent-institution. The petitioner is claiming a Mandamus or any appropriate direction for the above two reliefs against respondents. 2. The following facts on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed the above two reliefs are not in dispute. The petitioner was initially appointed as watchman in the school run by the first respondent on 1-7-1970 and was promoted as lab attender on 1-8- 1978 and posted in the junior college which is also run by the first respondent. The post of watchman in the school was an aided post whereas the post of lab attender was an unaided post during the relevant period i.e. upto 1-7-1988. The petitioner says that the first respondent’s management convinced and persuaded him to join the lab attender post promising that it would be made aided. However the lab attender post was made aided and sanctioned with effect from 1-7-1988. The petitioner has given various details as to how he worked and the method and manner in which the lab attender post was made aided, but it is not necessary to go into the same and it would be sufficient to note that subsequently he was posted in the aided post of lab attender w.e.f. 1-7-1988. 3. The plea of the petitioner is that the respondents however failed to count his service as watchman though it was an aided post, and also his service in the unaided post of lab attender for the purpose of pay, promotion and other attendant benefits and that is contrary to law and rules and therefore Mandamus should be issued to direct the respondents to grant him the said two reliefs. 4. The Joint Director in the office of the second respondent filed counter affidavit opposing this writ petition. His plea is that the lab attender post in question claimed by the petitioner has been made an aided post w.e.f. 1-7-1988 and therefore he cannot claim counting of service rendered in that post prior to that date or in the earlier post of watchman though it was an aided post in view of Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Staff (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2000 (A.P. Act 9 of 2000). The first respondent also took a similar stand. The other details are not necessary. 5. Now coming to the question whether the petitioner can be granted the reliefs claimed by him, it may be noted that the A.P. Act 9 of 2000 came into force on 25-4-2000. Section 1 (2) of the said Act says that it shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 10-1-1980. Then Section 2 of the said Act says that every employee of a private aided educational institution shall be eligible to count his service rendered in a post only from the date from which the said post has been admitted into grant-in-aid and not prior to that. Thus going by this provision the petitioner cannot be granted the reliefs claimed by him. 6. It may however be noted that the petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 6-7-2001 passed by Full Bench of this court in W.P.No.3002 of 2001 and batch. That order shows that in those matters, the then learned Additional Advocate General placed before the court a letter dated 25-7-2001 from the Secretary to Government, Education Department wherein it was stated that the Government would implement A.P. Act 9 of 2000 w.e.f. 25-4-2000 i.e. the date on which it was published in the Gazette and not from the earlier date i.e. 10-1-1980 which is stipulated in Section 1 (2) of the Act. It is not known whether the Legislature has amended Section 1 (2) of the Act to bring the said Act into force from 25-4- 2000 and no information is placed about the same before the court. 7. The said order of the Full Bench would show that it was constituted to decide the question of the validity or otherwise of A.P. Act 9 of 2000, but in view of the above representation made by the learned Additional Advocate General it did not go into that question as the said Act was to be implemented from 25-4-2000. The court then proceeded to pass the following order. “By reason of the aforementioned Act, the period of service of the concerned Teacher in unaided institution was not to be reckoned for the purpose of Automatic Advancement Scheme/Career Advancement Scheme/pension. It is accepted at the bar that in relation to some Teachers, the Automatic Advancement Scheme/Career Advancement Scheme/pension has already been granted, but in relation to some others the said benefit has been denied. Having regard to the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, we have not doubt whatsoever that in terms of the aforementioned letter, all Teachers would be treated equally irrespective of Act 9 of 2000.” 8. Sri Prabhakar Reddy the learned counsel for petitioners relying upon the above decision has argued that A.P. Act 9 of 2000 therefore cannot come in the way of the petitioner and the respondents cannot rely upon the same to deny the reliefs claimed by the petitioner. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent pointed out that the petitioner cannot be granted the said reliefs. Even assuming for a moment that the above A.P. Act 9 of 2000 cannot be relied upon by the respondents in view of the above decision of this court, still it is for the petitioner to show that under some relevant Government orders or provisions of law the petitioner is entitled to both the reliefs claimed by him. 9. The learned counsel for petitioner was not in a position to show what are the Government orders which entitle the petitioner to the reliefs claimed by him. So far as the post of lab attender is concerned, it was admitted to grant-in-aid on 1-7-1988, but nothing has been brought to my notice to show under what provision either a G.O. or a legal provision the petitioner is entitled to have his previous service in the lab attender’s post i.e. prior to 1-7-1988 counted for pay or pension once he left that post and joined a higher post. Thus the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in that behalf. 10. Then coming to the service rendered in the post of watchman, it is true that the said post was an aided post during the relevant period. Here also the learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to show any G.O. or other rule or legal provision under which the petitioner can claim that the said service should be counted for the purpose of pay. It may be noted that even in the above Full Bench decision, this court did not give any positive direction in favour of the petitioners therein with regard to the reliefs claimed. What all that is stated in the Full Bench decision is that in terms of the decision of the Government to implement the A.P. Act 9 of 2000 with effect from 25-4-2000 all the teacher or lecturers have to be treated equally with regard to their past service in unaided institutions for the purpose of Automatic Advancement Scheme/Career Advancement Scheme/pension by the authorities concerned and that no discrimination should be made. No information has been placed as to what decision has been taken in respect of above teachers. 11. To repeat, even assuming for a moment that A.P. Act 9 of 2010 does not come in the way of petitioner, still the petitioner has not been able to show any G.O. or rule or other provision which entitles him to the two reliefs claimed by him. In other words the petitioner has failed to establish his case though it is his burden to do so. In view of this it follows that this court cannot go to the help of the petitioner and give the directions sought for by him. 12. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. It shall however open for the petitioner to make a representation before the authorities concerned by citing the relevant G.Os. or rules or legal provisions making out his case for the reliefs claimed by him and the said authorities shall dispose of the said representation as expeditiously as possible. It goes without saying that petitioner shall always have the liberty to pursue his remedies if the decision of the concerned authority goes against him. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 6th September, 2011 TJMR/cvrk