IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9890 of 2009 Between: G. Satyanarayana Swamy S/o. Obulesu O/o. The Assistant Executive Engineer, TLC Sub-Division - II, A.P. Transco, Near 132 K.V. Sub-Station, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Vidyut Soudh, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent Engineer T.L. & S.S. Circle A.P. Transco, Kurnool. .....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 to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioner's representation dt.21-02- 2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Art.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dt.21-02-2009 in the light of the Regulation of 4 (i) of Appendix-I to T.O.O. (GM(IR)-Per) Ms.No.159, dt.10-08-2002. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9890 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents. This Writ Petition is directed against the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 21-02-2009 seeking a change in the option exercised by him to come on to the AP TRANSCO Revised Pay Scales for other than workmen 2002. The writ petitioner is presently working as a Lineman. He was initially recruited as a Junior Lineman on 30-07-1995 on a regular basis and subsequently, earned a promotion as Lineman on 01-01- 2004. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh through its T.O.O. (GM(IR)-Per) Ms.No.159, dated 10-08-2002 has announced the Revised Scales of Pay of its employees falling in various categories other than the categories of workman, with effect from 01-04-2002. All such candidates, who get covered by these Revised Pay Scales, were required to exercise options to come on to the Revised Scales of Pay either with effect from 01-04-2002 or from the date of increment in the existing scale which falls on or before 31-03-2003. It will also be appropriate to notice that one service weightage increment up to seven years of service would also be granted. Since the writ petitioner has been recruited as a Junior Lineman on 30-07-1995, he would have completed the seven years period by 30-07-2002 and consequently, he would have earned one service weightage increment on completion of seven years of service. But however, under a mistaken impression, he has exercised option to come on to the Revised Scales of Pay, 2002 with effect from 01-04-2002. Consequently, he could not get the benefit of one service weightage increment as he fell short of the requisite seven years length of service by a mere four months period. He has realized this error of judgment and submitted a detailed representation on 21-02-2009 seeking permission for coming on to the Revised Scales of Pay, 2002 with effect from 01-07-2002, by which date, he would have completed the seven years service and consequently, he would have earned the service weightage increment. It is his case that by inadvertenance, he exercised the option to get covered by this Revised Pay Scales, 2002 with effect from 01-04-2002, while some of his colleagues have taken care to exercise the option to come on to the Revised Scales of Pay after completion of seven years of service so that they would have earned the benefit of an additional increment representing this service weightage. The writ petitioner is now found to be drawing less pay and allowances than his colleagues, who have comparatively the same length of service as that of the writ petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondents, has filed counter in the matter. The learned standing counsel opposes the request of the writ petitioner, in principle, on two grounds: 1. The Revised Pay Scales, 2002 made it abundantly clear that an option once exercised shall not be allowed to be revised. 2. The writ petitioner having thus come on to the Revised Scales of Pay with effect from 01-04-2002 itself has drawn higher emoluments from that date and now if he were allowed to change his option to enable him to avail the seven years service weightage benefit of increment, he would be deriving the double advantage. Realizing the potential nature of the second objection, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has filed a memo into the court on 15-07-2009 pointing out that the writ petitioner is willing to repay the additional amount drawn by him by virtue of his pay revision benefit with effect from 01-04-2002, together with interest at 9% p.a. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side. It is true that the Revised Pay Rules, 2002 have made the position clear that an option once exercised shall be treated as final and binding on the employee. Otherwise no finality can be achieved to this exercise, but at the same time, it would be worthy to remember that an employee is entitled to get covered by the Revised Pay Rules not necessarily with effect from a common date prescribed therein but can also opt for coming on to the Revised Scales of Pay with effect from the next date of increment. That would enable the employee to earn his normal rate of increment after completion of 12 months of satisfactory service in that regard and then get covered by the new Revised Scales of Pay. Therefore, the option is left in the hands of the employees concerned. It is not necessary that all the employees need be covered by or brought on to the Revised Scales of Pay with effect from only one common date prescribed. In the instant case, the Revised Pay Scales, 2002 have been brought into effect on 01-04-2002. Therefore, it is for the employees to choose either to get covered by the Revised Pay Rules with effect from 01-04-2002 or from any other subsequent date, so long as such subsequent date falls on or before 31-03-2003. In the instant case, on 01-07-2002, the writ petitioner would have earned the benefit of an increment for having completed seven years of service. That weightage increment benefit has not been properly reckoned by the writ petitioner at the time when he exercised the option to get covered of the Revised Pay Rules, 2002 with effect from 01-04-2002. He nearly earned the service weightage benefit but missed it out by a three months period. Such a small error of judgment on the part of the writ petitioner should not allow him to be weighed down, inasmuch as, if he had properly exercised the option, he would have earned the benefit of service weightage increment upon completion of seven years of service by opting to come on to the Revised Scales of Pay with effect from said date. The ends of justice require that he be permitted to revise his option. The offer made by the writ petitioner for refunding the additional financial benefit/amount derived by him by coming on to the Revised Pay Scales with effect from 01-04-2002, instead of 01-07-2002, to my mind, is fair and reasonable. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to permit the writ petitioner to revise his option to come on to the Revised Pay Scales 2002 with effect from the next date on which he would have earned increment/service weightage increment, so long as the said date falls on or before 31-03-2003, instead of being covered by the Revised Pay Rules with effect from 01-04-2002. The differential amount, which the writ petitioner had drawn by virtue of the benefit of the Revised Pay Scales, 2002 from 01-04-2002 will now be recalculated. The same, as was undertaken by the writ petitioner, will be repaid by him within a period of three months thereafter with interest at 9% p.a. Let the entire exercise be completed on or before 31-10-2009 by the respondents. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 21st July, 2009 pn HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9890 of 2009 21st July, 2009