IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 26416 of 1999 Between: 1 The Chief of the Naval Staff Naval Head Quarters New Delhi. 2 The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters Eastern Naval Command Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Shri G.Srinivasulu S/o.Venkataramaiah Naval Dockyard Apprentice School Naval Base Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for records of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in M.A.200/99 in O.A.No.176/92, dt.14-6-99 and quash the orders passed therein and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 26416 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.6.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in M.A.No.200 of 1999 in O.A.No.176 of 1992 whereunder the Tribunal directed the second petitioner herein to condone the break in respondent’s service. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged on casual basis as Civilian Educational Instructor on 22.1.1969. Subsequently, his services were regularized with effect from 1.5.1974. The respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.176 of 1992 for extending the benefits of regularization from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 22.1.1969 by relying upon the earlier judgment dated 26.3.1991 in O.A.No.79 of 1990 and the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to regularize the services of the respondent from the date of initial appointment as Civilian Educational Instructor. In compliance with the order of the Tribunal, the respondent was regularized with effect from 5.1.1970 since the break in respondent’s service exceeded 10 days from 22.12.1969 to 04.01.1970. Respondent filed M.A.No.856 of 1997 claiming that he should be regularized with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e.22.1.1969 and not from 5.1.1970 and the respondent was directed to make a representation to the petitioner authorities for reckoning his service from the date of initial appointment. But, the respondent did not make any such representation and without filing the representation, the respondent again approached the Tribunal by filing M.A.No.200 of 1999 and the Tribunal directed the petitioner authorities to condone the break in service. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in M.A.200 of 1999, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the respondent has not complied with the orders passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.856 of 1997, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained M.A.No..200 of 1999 and ought not to have directed the petitioners to condone the break of 14 days in respondent’s service and the orders passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.200 of 1999 is contrary to the orders passed in M.A.No.856 of 1997. He contended that once the Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.176 of 1992 finally, it ought not to have entertained the applications. He further contended that as there was more than 10 days break in the respondent’s service, he was not regularized from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22.1.1969. Therefore, he prayed to set-aside the order dated 14.6.1999 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.200 of 1999 in O.A. No.176 of 1992. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the order dated 24.3.1995 in O.A.No.176 of 1992, the petitioners were directed to regularize the services of the respondent from the date of initial appointment. As such, in the subsequent application filed by the respondent in M.A. No. 200 of 1999, the petitioners were directed to condone the break of 14 days in his service. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, 1t is evident that the respondent filed O.A.No.176 of 1992 before the Tribunal for regularization of his services from the date of initial appointment and the Tribunal directed the petitioners to regularize the respondent from the date of his initial appointment and in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal, the first petitioner had issued orders dated 10.8.1995 regularizing the services of the respondent from the date of his initial appointment. Further, the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 14.6.1999 passed in M.A.No.856 of 1997 and M.A.No. 200 of 1999 respectively in O.A.No.176 of 1992 are not of much importance. Therefore, we are of the view that the order dated 24.3.1995 in O.A.No.176 of 1992 passed by the Tribunal has to be implemented in letter and spirit by regularizing the services of the respondent from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22.1.1969. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 03-02-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{CHP}