*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8442 of 2008 % 21-04-2008 Between: # Dr. Sarah Hithavachani & another …Petitioners And The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District Rep by its Executive Officer & another . …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS : MR. V. Jagapathi ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Mr. S. Venkateshwara Rao, Standing Counsel < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: -Nil- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8442 of 2008 Between: 1 Dr. Sarah Hithavachani, W/o. Lawrence Babu, SPW Degree College, Tirupati. 2 Dr. M.Radhamma, W/o. P.Sreeramachandra Murthy, SPW Degree College, Tirupati ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District Rep by its Executive Officer. 2 The Devasthanams Educational Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not treating the petitioners re-designation to the post of Lecturer in SPW Degree College, Tirupati, w.e.f. 01.04.1976 in terms of the resolution No.542 dt.9.12.2006 of the TTD Board of Trustees, communicated by the 1st Respondent vide Proceedings Roc No.D3/6710/DEO/ TTD/TPT/06 dt.26.12.2006, as arbitrary, and illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the petitioners for promotion to the post of Principal, SPW Degree College, Tirupati, by treating the re-designation of the petitioners to the post of Lecturer in SPW Degree College, Tirupati w.e.f. 01.04.1976 and further direct the Respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioners in the State DA Merged Scale of pay of Rs.530-1050 for the period from 1.4.1976 to till the date of implementation of the revised scale of pay of Rs.700-1600 and with all other consequential benefits monetary or otherwise. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SVENKATESWARA RAO(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8442 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners were appointed as Junior Lecturers in Sri Padmavathi Degree College on 18.8.1975 and 19.1.1976, respectively. The College is established and administered by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the Rules framed under the A.P. Education Act, as well as the orders issued by the Government, from time to time. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1072, Education (W) Department, dated 26.11.1976, providing for revision of Pay Scales, to the affiliated Degree and Post-Graduate Colleges. One of the measures indicated therein was, the merger of the posts of Junior Lecturers, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, etc, into one category of Lecturer, and to fix a Pay Scale of Rs.700-1,600/- for that post. The measure was to come into force, with effect from 1.4.1976, subject to the condition that the candidate must have completed five years of service. The period of 5 years was subsequently reduced to 3 years. The petitioners made representation to the authorities of the Higher Education Department, as well as the Devasthanam, with a request to extend the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26.11.1976. The Director of Higher Education issued proceedings, dated 5.7.1983 and 8.9.1986, directing the Devasthanam to extend the benefit under the G.O. Accordingly, vide Memo dated 19.2.1990, the Devasthanam redesignated the petitioners herein. The petitioners were not satisfied with the Memo, dated 19.2.1990. They made representations to the Devasthanam, claiming that they are entitled to be extended the benefit, with effect from 1.4.1976. After several rounds of correspondence, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 26.12.2006, designating the petitioners herein as Lecturers, with effect from 1.4.1976 notionally, and allowing monetary benefit, with effect from 9.12.2006. The grievance of the petitioners is that they ought to have been extended the monitory benefit also from 1.4.1976, and accordingly, they seek necessary directions, in this writ petition. They contend that they were appointed prior to 1.4.1976, and as such, they are entitled to be extended all the benefits, with effect from 1.4.1976. Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that though the petitioners were designated as lecturers, with effect from 1.4.1976, it ultimately emerged that the lecturers, who were appointed subsequent to the date of the appointment of the petitioners, were drawing higher salary and as such, the anomaly needs to be corrected. Sri S. Venkateshwara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that one of the conditions imposed under G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26.11.1976, is that the benefit would be available, from the date of completion of 3 years, from the date of appointment, and the petitioners have already been extended the same. By the year 1976, there existed several categories of teachers at college level, such as, Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers, Junior Lecturers, etc. While implementing the revised Pay Scales in the year 1976, the Government combined the three into one category, viz; Lecturers, and allowed the Pay-scales of Rs.700-1,600. This merger and extension of the benefit was subject to the condition specified in Col.6 of Annexure-I to the G.O. The condition, in relation to Junior Lecturers working in Degree Colleges, reads as under: “(a) Junior Lecturers in Degree Colleges till they complete a total, whether continuous or not, of 5 years service will draw the State D.A. merged scale of Rs.530-1050. After they complete the total, whether continuous or not, service of 5 years, they will come on to the Revised Pay Scales, 1976 of Rs.700-1600. They should acquire the M.Phil,/M.Litt. degree within 5 years from the date of entering the Revised Pay Scales, 1976, or 1.6.1976 whichever is later, failing which they cannot earn any future increments or they will stop at the Assessment stage at Rs.1200/-, whichever is earlier. Further increments upto Rs.1200/- in the Revised Pay Scales, 1976 will be allowed only after they acquire the M.Phil./M.Litt. degree.” This period of 5 years was subsequently reduced to 3 years, vide their Memo, dated 18.8.1983. So far as the lecturers, who were already working with the designation, by the date of G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26.11.1976, were concerned, the extension of the revised Pay Scales was automatic. The net result is that the petitioners were entitled to be extended the revised Pay Scale of Rs.700-1600, with effect from the date on which they completed 3 years of service, since there was no dispute that they were appointed prior to 1.4.1976. Undisputedly, the petitioners completed their 3 years of service on 13.12.1976 and 5.6.1979, respectively. The said benefit was extended to the petitioners, vide Memo dated 19.12.1990. The insistence of the petitioners that they must be extended all the benefits, with effect from 1.4.1976, is untenable. The benefit under G.O.Ms.No.1072 was extendible only on fulfillment of the conditions, and that the same has already been extended to the petitioners. The only significance of 1.4.1976 is that irrespective of the date of appointment, the benefit cannot be extended beyond that date. For instance, if a Junior Lecturer was appointed on 1.3.1970, he would complete his 3 years of service by 1.3.1973. However, he cannot be extended the benefit of the Revised Pay Scales from that date. Irrespective of the date, on which a Junior Lecturer may have completed 3 years of service, he cannot get the benefit anterior to 1.4.1976. In case of the petitioners, that situation does not exist. Though their appointment was prior to 1.4.1976, they completed their 3 years of service only on 13.12.1976 and 5.6.1979, respectively. Benefit with effect from those dates was already extended to them. In a way, the entire benefit, which the petitioners were entitled, was extended to them in the year 1990 itself, and they do not deserve any thing further. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 21st April 2008 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN