IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19202 OF 1999 Between: Smt Shanthamma ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.Residential Educational Educational Institutions Society, rep. by its Secretary, Gagan Vihar, III Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.19202 OF 1999 O R D E R : The petitioner’s husband by name Durganna, who was working as Attender in Andhra Pradesh Residential School, Sadasivapeta, Medak District, died on 16.12.1986. Having considered the request of the petitioner, she was appointed as Kitchen Helper on compassionate grounds vide proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 02.05.1987. It is stated that the petitioner was paid only Rs.500/- per month, whereas the pay scale applicable to the post was Rs.740-1150. Alleging that in spite of her repeated requests, she was not granted the scale of pay, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not extending the pay scale of Rs.740-1150, which has been revised to 1375-2375 from the date of her appointment, is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that similarly situated persons namely Sri Yellaiah-Watchman, Smt. Anjamma-Kitchen Helper and Smt. D.Padma- Scavanger were extended the regular scale of pay from the date of their appointment. It is further pleaded that some of the similarly situated non- teaching staff of the 1st respondent-Society approached this Court seeking payment of regular scale of pay and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3903 of 1994 and batch, by order dated 25.09.1996 directed the respondents to pay regular scale of pay as well as the arrears. Pursuant thereto, by proceedings dated 31.10.1997, 18 employees of the respondent-Society were extended the scale of pay. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner was appointed against a full time contingent post as kitchen helper with a pay of Rs.238/- and allowances fixed by the Government, while sanctioning the post in the 3rd respondent- Institution. Subsequently, vide G.O.Ms.No.483, Education (Prog.I) Department, dated 31.03.1995, the Government had accepted the proposal for conversion of 22 full time contingent posts into last grade posts. Pursuant thereto the petitioner was absorbed in the last grade post along with other contingent staff and she was granted minimum scale of pay Rs.1375-2375 with effect from 31.03.1995. So far as the three persons namely Sri Yellaiah-Watchman, Smt. Anjamma- Kitchen Helper and Smt. D.Padma-Scavanger are concerned, it is explained that they were appointed against the posts sanctioned during the year 1983 on regular basis through the District Selection Committee through Employment Exchange during the month of July, 1989 and that subsequently, pursuant to the order of this Court they were granted the scale of pay from their date of appointment, since they were appointed on regular basis. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The specific plea in the counter affidavit that there were no vacancies in the last grade service in the institution of the 1st respondent-Society and the petitioner was appointed against a full time contingent post could not be disputed by the petitioner and no material could be placed before this Court to show that the petitioner’s appointment was against a sanctioned post. Hence, she cannot be placed on par with the other non-teaching staff, who were appointed against sanctioned posts, following due process of selection. It is also relevant to note that by proceedings dated 09.06.1995 while converting the post held by the petitioner into last grade post, the petitioner was granted scale of pay from 31.03.1995 onwards. Having allowed the said proceedings to become final it is not open to the petitioner now to contend that she should be granted scale of pay from the date of her initial appointment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ​ ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 11.06.2010 Ivd