THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 33468 of 2011 Dated: 20-12-2011 Between The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Education (PE.Prog.II) Department, Hyderabad and another …Petitioners And Smt M.Rajyalakshmi and another …Respondents Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This is a misconceived writ petition preferred by the State and another against the order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 27-12-2010, allowing O.A.No. 2676 of 2010 and directing the petitioners to release pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent/applicant according to her eligibility qua G.O.Ms.No.3, Education Department, dated 2-1-2001, as amended in G.O.Rt.No.113, Education Department dated 25-2-2003 i.e., with effect from the date of entry of the 1st respondent herein into service i.e., with effect from 3-1-1983. The applicant entered the service of the A.P. Baalala Akademi on 3-1-1983 as a Junior Assistant, when the said Institution was a society registered under the provisions of the A.P. (TA) Public Society Registration Act, 1350-F. In G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 2-1-2001 the Baalala Akademi established in 1976 was taken over by the State Government and pursuant to a representation of the A.P. Baalala Akademi Employees Welfare Association dated 25-6-1999 the State Government issued orders for provincialising the services of the staff of the Academy which was merged with Jawahar Bal Bhavan to enable them to obtain pensionary benefits on par with other Government employees. Orders were issued by the State Government provincialising the services of the staff of the A.P. Baalala Akademi enumerated in the Annexure to the order. Paragraph 4 of the order enabled pension instead of contributory provident fund and specified that the services of Staff of the Andhra Pradesh Baalala Akademi shall be counted from the date of entry into service by the individuals. The Annexure to the order did not specify the name of the 1st respondent/applicant, on the premise that she was not in service as on the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.3; the 1st respondent having retired from service of the A.P. Baalala Akademi on 30-4-2000, earlier to G.O.Ms.No.3. However, in G.O.Rt.NO.113, Education Department, dated 25-2- 2003 the State issued an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.3 incorporating the name of the 1st respondent herein at Sl.No.10 of the Annexure to the said order and specified that the amendment would be effective from the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.3. Subsequently, in G.O.Ms.No.114, Education Department, dated 8-9-2003 (an order neither pleaded nor brought to the notice of the Tribunal) a further amendment was made to paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No.3 which reads: “4. Government after careful examination of the request of the Andhra Pradesh Baalala Akademi Employees Welfare Association, hereby provincialise the services of the staff of Andhra Pradesh Baalala Akademi as annexured to this order and integrate them with Jawahar Bal Bhavan by winding up Andhra Pradesh Baalala Akademi with immediate effect. The services of existing personnel of Andhra Pradesh Baalala Akademi are provincialised subject to abolishing the posts as and when casual vacancies arise in the cadre.” As a consequence of the amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.114, the 1st respondent herein though included in the Annexure to the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.3 and thus provincialised and entitled to pensionary benefits qua paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No.3, was rendered disentitled to pensionary benefits, by specifying that only services of existing personnel of the Andhra Pradesh Baala Akademi are provincialised. Since the 1st respondent was not an existing employee of the Andhra Pradesh Baala Akademi as on 2-1-2001 (the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.3) she would be disentitled to the benefit of provincialisation and consequential pension is the purport of the order in G.O.Ms.No.114. Apart from the incoherence of this amendatory exercise, namely, maintaining the substantive specifications of para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.3 without excluding the name of the 1st respondent from the Annexure to the said order, it requires to be noticed that in undertaking this administrative amendment depriving the 1st respondent of the benefits of provincialisation and consequent pensionary benefits, no notice or opportunity was afforded to the 1st respondent before depriving her of the benefits. At any rate, G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 8-9-2003 was neither pleaded nor brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that in view of the 1st respondent’s name being set out in the Annexure to G.O.Ms.No.3 by the amendment issued in G.O.Rt.No.113 dated 25-2-2003 she was eligible to pensionary benefits on par with the provincialised employees. In the facts and circumstances and the chronology of events adverted to above, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the Tribunal. In view of the law laid down in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[1], the relevant facts are required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal on consideration of the applicable provisions of law in the first instance and it is not open to a litigant to canvass part of the case before the Tribunal and in a judicial review thereagainst urge that there are other factors which have a bearing on the outcome of litigation. Since G.O.Ms.No.114 dated 8-9-2003 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the petitioners are not entitled to plead that in view of the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.114 the 1st respondent/applicant is not entitled to the benefits of provincialisation and consequent pension. Even otherwise since in G.O.Ms.No.114 amendment to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.3 were issued in exercise of the executive power of the State and without notice and opportunity to the applicant/1st respondent, having the effect of depriving her of the benefits accrued consequent on the amendatory exercise of G.O.Rt.No.113, the amendment cannot be operationalised as it would violate the principles of natural justice. For the plurality of reasons recorded above, the writ petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 20th December, 2011 ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J GRR [1] AIR 1997 SC 1125