IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 775 OF 2000 Between: The Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi and another ..... PETITIONERS AND P.Jayalakshmi Parthasaradhy .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 10.3.1999 passed in O.A. No. 1419 of 1997 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and to consequently set aside the same, the respondents in the O.A. filed this writ petition. The respondent herein was appointed as Postal Assistant on 13.5.1977 and subsequently promoted as U.D.C. Her pay was fixed as on 25.6.1993 at Rs.1,440/- in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. The scheme called as Time Bound One Promotion was introduced with effect from 26.6.1993 under which the L.D.Cs. and U.D.Cs. in the scale of Rs.950-1500 and Rs.1200-2040 have to be first brought to the cadre of Postal Assistant in the scale of Rs.950-1500 and then should be given the benefit of the scheme. The respondent, being qualified, has exercised her option. Her case is that she should be first posted as Postal Assistant in the scale of Rs.975- 1660/- and immediately after wards, as she had completed 16 years of service, should be placed in the scale of Rs.1400-2300, as LSG appointee, but the petitioners herein have placed her directly in the scale with effect from 26.6.1993, as she was qualified. Thus she was deprived of the monetary benefits in pay fixation. The Tribunal, following the order passed by it in OA Nos.1420 and 1421 of 1997, directed that the pay of the respondent be fixed in the scale of Rs.975-1660 as Postal Assistant and then her pay should be re-fixed in the higher scale of Rs.1400-2300, if she had completed 16 years of service as on the date of introduction of the scheme i.e. 26.6.1993. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents in the O.A. filed the present writ petition. On 21.7.2010, when the writ petition was called, learned counsel for the respondents was absent. Today also, neither learned counsel for the respondents is present nor there is any representation on her behalf. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition on merits. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.1999 passed in O.A. No. 1421 of 1997, the petitioners herein have filed W.P. No. 429 of 2000 and a Larger Bench of this Court in a decision Union of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi and Others Vs. K.Radhakrishna Murthy and others ([1]), while answering the reference, in a batch of writ petitions, by order dated 25.8.2003, has held that to invoke FR 22(1) (a)(i), two conditions are required to be noticed namely (i) that new pot must involve the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the earlier post and (ii) that the employee must be moving from lower scale attached to the lower post to higher scale attached to the higher post. Since the two conditions are not involved in the instant case, the provision of FR 22(1)(a)(i) cannot be invoked. Consequently, following the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada July 26, 2010 GSN/MAS [1] 2004(1) ALT 609(F.B.)