IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26311 of 1999 Between: B.Veeranna S/o.Basappa, Commissioner of Land Revenue A.P R/o.Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretarite, Hyderabad. 3 Commissioner of Land Revenue, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 Commissioner of Land Reforms, Govt of A.P , Hyderabad. 5 District Collector, Eluru 6 Registrar, A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ , order or direction , more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1070/91 Dt: 2-12-1998 is illegal , arbitrary to law , and set aside the same , and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to pay all the monetary benefits with retrospective effect from 1987 of the Special Grade Deputy Collector's pay and other allowances, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAMABRAHMAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.26311 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Ramulu) This writ petition is directed against the order made in O.A.No.1070 of 1991 dated 02-12-1998 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. It appears the petitioner filed O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion as Special Grade Deputy Collector retrospectively, with all consequential benefits. In fact, the applicant – petitioner herein retired from service on 30-6-1990 and he sought for expunging of the adverse remarks in Confidential Reports, which was acceded by the Government. The claim for promotion of the applicant was to be considered only after expunction of the remarks i.e. after 30-5-1990. In those circumstances, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had only one month service i.e. 01-6-1990 to 30-6-1990 and his case may be considered as per Rules. In fact, the respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector, as per his seniority and if he is otherwise eligible and qualified and falls within the zone of consideration. 3. At the time of filing of writ petition, the petitioner was 68 years old and now he must be 78 years. There was no adverse order passed by the Tribunal calling for our interference. The impugned order itself was positive directing the official respondents to pass appropriate orders as per Rules after expunging of remarks by the Government. In those circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and take a different view while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 17-07-2008 bsc