IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18800 of 1998 Between: G. Sammi Reddy S/o. Jagga Reddy, aged 44 years, Asst.Divisional Engineer, Operation, APNPDCL,Jangaon, Warangal District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. Member Secretary, APSEB, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. Chief Engineer (Operation Maintainance), KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District. 3. Superintending Engineer, O & M, KTPS “a”, Paloncha, Khammam District 4. A.P.N.P.D.C.L., rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Warangal, Warangal District. (R-4 is impleaded as per Court order dt.4.10.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.23025 of 2004) ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or directions, declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner on training from 28-11-1994 up to November, 1995 without extending the benefits of B.P.Ms.No.354, dt.12-12-1996, to the petitioner as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and unconstitutional and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a regularly appointed Assistant Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. the date of his selection i.e. 16-11-1994, with all consequential benefits like fixing in regular pay scale with allowances, annual increments, Seniority, etc. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: MR. RAVINDRANATH (SC FOR A.P.S.E.B.) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed, when the representation of the petitioner seeking fixation of his pay on par with his juniors in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was rejected by an order dated 11.12.1997, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner on training from 28.11.1994 to November, 1995, without extending the benefits of B.P.Ms.No.354, dated 12.12.1996, as arbitrary and unreasonable, and for a consequential direction to treat the petitioner as regularly appointed Assistant Engineer (Electrical), with effect from the date of his selection i.e. 16.11.1994, with all consequential benefits, like fixation of regular pay on par with his juniors etc.. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer on 22.10.1988 in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short “the Board”). Thereafter, he had passed B.Tech in Electrical Engineering in first division from Kakatiya University, during the year 1990-94. By July, 1994, he had put in a service of 5 years and 9 months in the Board and became eligible for being considered to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). As per the regulations of the Board, the post of Assistant Engineer is a promotional post from the cadre of Sub-Engineer. The petitioner was well qualified and eligible to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. In pursuance of the notification issued by the Board for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner also applied for the same. A written test was conducted on 22.5.1994 and thereafter, he was called for an oral interview on 15.11.1994. Thereafter, the Board had issued orders dated 16.11.1994, appointing the petitioner as Assistant Engineer and also directing him to undergo training for a period of one year. In pursuance of the said orders, the petitioner had completed his training from 28.11.1994 to November, 1995. In the mean while, as many as 92 persons, who were working as Sub-Engineers in the Board and who failed in the test conducted on 22.5.1994 for the post of Assistant Engineer, made a representation to the Board seeking relaxation of selection process, like written test and interview etc, as a one time measure. Basing on their representation, the Board relaxed the rules relating to the appointment and promoted them directly as Assistant Engineers with effect from 12.12.1994 though they failed in the test conducted on 22.05.1994, and subsequently they were also exempted from undergoing training. The said persons were granted increment in the month of January, 1996, since they all joined duty in the month of January, 1995. Though the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the month of November, 1994 and completed his one year training in the month of November, 1995, he was not sanctioned increment after completion of one year, and he was sanctioned increment only in the month of November, 1996. The petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee duly constituted by the Board, after qualifying in the written test and interview, and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and joined in the said post on 28.11.1994.. Thus, he was entitled to draw the increment in the month of November, 1995 only, but his increment was sanctioned from the month of November, 1996. All the 92 persons, in whose favour relaxation was granted by the Board, were sanctioned increments as early as in the month of January, 1996 itself, whereas, the petitioner, who was selected in regular process on the basis of his merit, in the month of November, 1994, was not granted increment, which fell due in the month of November, 1995. Thus, the juniors of the petitioner were drawing more salary than him. Further, though the seniority of the petitioner was protected by placing him above the 92 persons, his salary was not protected. Under these circumstances, the petitioner made a representation on 16.09.1997 seeking pay protection on par with his juniors, since he was promoted on 28.11.1994 and completed one year training in the month of November, 1995 itself. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter has been filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter, it is asserted that the petitioner is not entitled for pay protection on par with his juniors. The seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Engineer is not denied. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner was a direct recruit and appointed on 28.11.1994, his seniority was protected in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, but he is not entitled for salary on par with the other 92 persons, in whose favour one time measure of relaxation was extended. The source of recruitment and promotion of the petitioner is altogether different from the source of recruitment of the said 92 persons. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that having protected the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and placing him above all those 92 persons, there is no rationale on the part of the Board in depriving his pay on par with his juniors. The learned counsel relied on Regulation 30-A of the Service Regulations of the Board, which takes care of such a situation and reads as follows: i. “In order to remove the pay anomaly of a Board servant promoted or appointed to a higher post on or after the date of introduction of new regulations, namely 19th November, 1984 and drawing a lower rate of pay in that post, than another Board servant junior to him in the lower grade and promoted or appointed subsequently to another identical post, the A.P.S.E. Board has decided that in such cases, the pay of the senior Board servant should be stepped up in the higher post to a figure equal to the pay fixed for the junior Board servant in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior and shall be subject to the conditions mentioned in instruction (ii) below”. These order shall be deemed to have come into effect from the 19th November, 1984, the date on which new regulation 30-A was issued. ii. To safe-guard the interests of a senior promoted before the introduction of the new regulation, in relation to a junior promoted after the new regulation came into existence, the A.P.S.E.Board has decided that in such cases, the pay of a senior person promoted to the higher post before the date of this order, should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior in that higher post, as a result of application of the new regulation. This will, however, be subject to the following conditions viz. (a) The stepping up should be done, with effect from the date of promotion, or fixation of pay of the junior official under the new regulation 30A of A.P.S.E. Board Service Regulation, Part-I. (b) Both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts to which they are promoted should be identical and in the same cadre. c. The scale of pay of the lower and the higher post in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. d. The anomaly should be directly a result of fixation of pay of the junior under the new regulation consequent on his promotion after the date of this order. For example, if even in the former post, the junior person draws, from time to time a higher rate of pay under normal rules, or any advance increments are granted to him, the pay of the senior person promoted before the date of this order should not be stepped up. e. The orders refixing the pay of the senior Person, shall be issued under Regulation 34, of A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations, Part- I. f. The next increment of the senior will be drawn from the date on which it would have fallen due but for the stepping up of his pay under this order.” and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to protect his salary on par with his juniors, who were promoted as Assistant Engineers, with effect from 12.12.1994. As seen from the above, the Regulation 30-A contemplates the removal of anomaly as well as safeguarding the interest of a senior promoted or appointed subsequent to another identical post, and in such a case, the pay of the senior servant of the Board should be stepped up in the higher post to a figure equivalent to the pay fixed for the junior servant in the higher post. Further, the stepping up should be done with effect from the date of promotion or appointment of the junior and shall be subject to further conditions. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the above regulation and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner within fifteen days thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ 4th October, 2004. Pan To 1. The Member Secretary, APSEB, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Engineer (Operation Maintainance), KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District. 3. The Superintending Engineer, O & M, KTPS “a”, Paloncha, Khammam District. 4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, A.P.N.P.D.C.L., Warangal, Warangal District. 5. Two C.D. copies.