IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22570 of 1999 Between: A.Kondaiah S/o.Venkat Swamy Central Survey & Land Records R/o.Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlement Survey & Land Records A.P Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director Central Survey Office Hyderabad. 4 The A.P.Administrative Tribunal Rep.by its Registrar Hyderabad. ..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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the O.A.No.4389/1995 without taking into consideration of the grounds raised in the O.A., as highly arbitrary and illegal and consequently set-aside the orders in O.A.No.4389/1995 dated 7-7- 1999 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal while directing the respondents 1 to 3 to give the benefit of 10 years; 15 years; and 22 years scales to the petitioner taking in to consideration of the total service rendered by the petitioner to be the service in the category of Attender and consequently refix his pension and award all consequential benefits of arrears of salary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22570 OF 1999 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This Writ Petition is directed against an order made in O.A.No.4389 of 1995, dated 07.07.1999, on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner joined the service on 18.04.1955 as Attender. In the year 1975, he was converted as a Tailor on his own request. It appears that G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 15.05.1981, was issued for the purpose of granting special grade scale for those who have completed 10 years, 15 years and 22 years of service and were not promoted. The petitioner made a representation for grant of special grade scale stating that Tailor was not included in the Last Grade Services, but it was not considered. However, in the year 1986, G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 17.11.1986, was issued, whereunder the post of Tailor was included in the Last Grade Services and since the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service by 1985 in the post of Tailor, he was given 10 years special grade. 3. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that since the post of Tailor is included in the Last Grade Service in the year 1985, he is also entitled for 10 years, 15 years and 22 years of special grade as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.117 of 1981. It is his further grievance that in view of these circumstances, his juniors are drawing more pension than him, after retirement. 4. The Tribunal having gone through the facts of the case, found that the petitioner earlier filed O.A.No.1283 of 1985 and the said O.A. was disposed of on 15.06.1995 directing the respondents therein to dispose of the representation purported to have been made by the petitioner and thereafter, the Government by its Memo, dated 28.07.1995, rejected the claim of the applicant. Aggrieved thereby, the present O.A. was filed. Unfortunately this O.A. was also nothing but repetition of the earlier O.A. and the fact that the representation was disposed of by the Government rejecting the same, was not reflected in the said O.A. nor the said order was challenged. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal found that applicant did not even question the rejection proceedings, dated 28.07.1995, or revealed disposal of the earlier O.A., as such the applicant has suppressed the information and filed the present O.A. and therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner studied only up to 3rd class and did not know the contents of the present O.A. filed before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and it appears that the Counsel appearing for the petitioner made a mistake by repeating the contents of the old O.A. and filed it and therefore, that was the reason why all the facts were not properly reflected. 6. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. However, the Writ Petition is disposed of without disturbing the order made by the Administrative Tribunal, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Government by making another representation and seeking relief therefor as per law. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. Date: 23.06.2008 _________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. GS