IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17862 of 2008 Between: Syed Moulana S/o. Syed Ismail APSEB, Nizamabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Operation Circle, APNPDCL, Nizamabad. 2 The Senior Accounts Officr, NPDCL, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not protecting the pay of the petitioner, by rectifying the anomaly on par with his junior one D. Gangadhar, in terms of Memo No.DS(R)/DM/VII/559/S2-93-4, dated 24.01.1996 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to protect the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior D. Gangadhar strictly in terms of the above Memo dated 24.01.1996 with all other service and monetary benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondents: O.MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as L.D.C. in the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board on 05.03.1965. He retired from service on 31.01.1999. His grievance is that though he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.90-160 at the time of his appointment, his junior, by name Gangadhar, who was appointed on 12.06.1969, was placed in the pay scale of Rs.126-250. He seeks the relief of declaration that the lapse on the part of the respondents in rectifying the anomaly is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Reference is made to a Memo, dated 29.09.2007, issued by the respondents extending the special grade post of U.D.C. to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.2280-4605. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The anomaly pointed out by the petitioner had occurred way back in the year 1969. It may be true that he has been making representations one after the other in this regard. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner did not approach this Court for this relief in all these decades. Not only several decades have elapsed ever since the date on which the anomaly is said to have been taken place, but the petitioner had also retired about a decade ago. At this stage, the alleged anomaly cannot be rectiﬁed. It would be too diﬃcult to expect the respondents to gather the information or particulars in relation to the said anomaly. The extension of the beneﬁt of special grade post of U.D.C. to the petitioner after his retirement is on the basis of working out the vacancy position, etc. That cannot give rise to a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to seek rectification of the alleged anomaly of the year 1969. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.08.2008 kdl