THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8641 OF 2008 27th October, 2011 BETWEEN: K.M.VENKATESWARLU .. PETITIONER AND STATE OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPT., SECRETARIAT, ANDHRA PRADESH,HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8641 OF 2008 O R D E R : (PER THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) Heard Dr.K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services II for respondents 1 and 2. There is no representation on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 1-10-2007 allowing O.A.No.6923 of 2003 filed by the 3rd respondent herein challenging the validity of the orders issued by the official respondents herein in G.O.Rt.No.1441 dated 31.7.2003 whereby and whereunder the State Government after relaxing Rule 33(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 in respect of the writ petitioner (4th respondent in the O.A.) and deciding to consider grant of notional promotion to the said individual as Prohibition and Excise Inspector w.e.f. 21-10-1983 on par with his junior so promoted. The petitioner while working as Excise Sub Inspector was not considered for promotion as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in 1983 when he was due and eligible, on account of pending disciplinary proceedings. He was, however, defacto promoted as Excise Inspector in the year 1989 after having been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings. After exoneration in disciplinary proceedings he represented for restoration of seniority on par with his junior who was promoted as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the year 2003. Initially the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise by an order dated 15.4.1995 considered the representation of the petitioner and observed that in view of the charges against him having been dropped he is considered for notional promotion as Excise Inspector with retrospective effect from 21.10.1983 on par with Sri.Y.G.K.Murthy who was so promoted. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise also observed in the said order (dated 15.4.1995) that the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefit from 21.10.1983 to 15.8.1989 (the date of actual promotion as Prohibition and Excise Inspector) and that only financial benefits in terms of pay fixation are eligible. Subsequently, the G.O.Rt.No.1441, dated 31.7.2003 was issued by the State Government, which reads as follows: “ In the circumstances reported by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise in his letter read above, Government after examination of the matter, have decided to consider for notional promotion to Sri.K.M.Venkateswarlu as Prohibition & Excise Inspector with effect from 21.10.1983 on par with his junior after issue of show cause notice to the persons in the Division who would be effected. Accordingly, Government hereby relax the Rule 33(a) of A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules in respect of Sri.K.M.Venkateswarlu, Prohibition & Excise Inspector for his promotion as Excise Inspector notionally from the date of promotion of his junior. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise shall take further action as per rules in the matter accordingly.” The learned Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the order of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.1441, Dated 31.7.2003 is unsustainable since the ritual of issuing a show cause notice to the effected individuals follows a decision already taken to relax Rule 33(a) in favour of the petitioner (4th respondent in the O.A). We discern no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion recorded by the learned Tribunal warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it is made clear that should the State Government decide to grant the petitioner the benefit of restoration of seniority in the category of Prohibition and Excise Inspector it shall issue a notice to all the effected persons and only thereafter take a decision, including in the matter of relaxing Rule 33(a) of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed but with the above observations. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 27th October, 2011. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8641 OF 2008 O R D E R : (PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) 27TH September, 2011. tnb