IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 21035 of 1999 Between : 1) Smt. V.M.Mariamma, W/o.M.J.Batrykutty, Superintending Engineer, Transco, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh. 2) Abdul Rahman, S/o Ahmed Hussain, Electricity Revenue Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, Andhra Pradesh. 3) Raheemuddin, Electricity Revenue Officer (R) Nizamabad. 4) Khaja Mohinuddin, Electricity Revenue Officer, Rural, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1) The Superintending Engineer, A.P. Transco, Nizamabad. 2) The Chief Engineer (O) Zone, A.P.Transco, Nizamabad. 3) The A.P Transco, Rep by its Member Secretary, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad. Disd for default as per Court Order dt.21.3.03 as against R3 .....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, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner are entitled to have their pay revised and re-fixed on par with their respective juniors in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.10869/84, Dt.6.11.92 as extended to other similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not extending the said benefit to the petitioners even though they are similarly situated on the pretext of one reason or the other on the ground that they have not obtained directions of this Hon'ble Court as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and pass such other or further order or orders, as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21035 OF 1999 ORDER : The grievance of the petitioners in this case is that their pay was not revised on par with their juniors as per the order of this Court in W.P.No.10869 of 1984. It is the case of the petitioners that said discrimination was effected on the basis of some of the L.D.Cs. being graduates and some being non-graduates. As per the order dated 06.11.1992 of this Court in W.P.No.10869/1984, this discrimination was wiped out from 01.04.1974 and irrespective of their qualification, the employees would form one category. There could be no discrimination between the pay of graduate and non-graduate L.D.Cs. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that others similarly situated were also granted benefit, but the petitioners alone were deprived of re- fixation of their pay on par with their juniors. A counter was filed by the respondent Organization through the Chief General Manager/HRD, APNPDCL, Warangal, admitting that this Court had earlier upheld the contention sought to be raised by the petitioners in the present case, vide the judgment in W.P.No.10869/1984 and that the discrimination between graduate and non-graduate L.D.Cs. had been wiped out. The counter affidavit goes on to state that no specific instructions were given by the Board to rectify the anomaly in sofaras the petitioners are concerned. In view of the admission made by the respondent Organization, a direction shall issue to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for re-fixation of their pay on par with their juniors, who had been given the benefit by virtue of the orders passed by this Court earlier in W.P.No.10869/1984, W.P.No.3916/1998 and W.P.No.4668 of 1998. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 24th MARCH, 2009 SUR