HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.5154 of 2010 Date:15.06.2010 Between: The Engineer-in-Chief, R&B, Hyderabad and two others …Petitioners And/- Md.Amerulla Khan Durrani and another ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.5154 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram, J) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services- II for the petitioners and Sri K. Ramalingeshwara Rao, for the first respondent. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief, (R&B), Hyderabad, Superintending Engineer, (R&B), Kakinda, and Executive Engineer, (R&B), Kakinada have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 27.08.2009 in O.A.No.9987 of 2009. 3. The first respondent preferred O.A.No.9987 of 2009 to declare the action of the respondents therein in not revising and re-fixing his pay scale in terms of G.O.Ms.No.226, I & P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980 with effect from 01.04.1978 as illegal, improper and contrary to the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1300 of 1994 and batch, dated 25.10.1994 and another batch of O.A.No.6662 of 1998, dated 31.03.2004 and for consequential appropriate direction. 4. By the order impugned herein, the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. directing that the first respondent’s salary be fixed as per G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980, within a period of eight weeks and in terms of the earlier judgments of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1300 of 1994 and batch, dated 25.10.1994 and another batch of O.A.No.6662 of 1998, dated 31.03.2004, on par with the pay scale allowed to one Mr.Eshak Madina Vali, Work Inspector at Sl.No.34 in the seniority list of Work Inspectors (junior to the first respondent herein). 5. The learned Government Pleader would contend that contrary to the express terms of G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980 (para 6 therein), the succession of orders of the learned Tribunal have ordained that the revision of pay scales, in G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980 be with effect from 01.04.1978. Para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980 specifically enjoins that the orders contained therein would come into force with effect from the date of issue of G.O. namely prospectively. It is further contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that in some of the O.As. where directions were issued for grant of revised pay scales as per G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980 (with effect from 01.04.1978), the State preferred writ petitions before this Court including W.P.No.23321 of 2005 (pertaining to the Tribunal’s order, dated 13.10.2003 in O.A.No.6272 of 2003) and a learned Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 17.03.2008 held that the order of the Tribunal (impugned therein) is unsustainable and G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980 will have prospective effect, i.e. with effect from 26.06.1980. 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent was granted the benefits of the revised pay scale in terms of G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980 with effect from the date of issue of the G.O. 7. The singular grievance before the Tribunal was for extending the benefit of revised pay scales from 01.04.1978 i.e. anterior to G.O.Ms.No.226, I&P (Ser.V) Department, dated 26.06.1980. The learned Tribunal has granted him the relief as prayed for by the order impugned. 8. The order of the Tribunal impugned herein is unsustainable in view of the judgment of this Court dated 17.03.2008 in W.P.No.23321 of 2005. Another reason why first respondent’s cause must fail is that despite seeking revision of pay scales (with effect from a date anterior to G.O.Ms.No.266), in the status as a member of the civil service of the State and by drawal of funds from the consolidated fund of the State, the petitioner failed to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party respondent, but has merely impleaded the Engineer-in- chief, (R&B), Superintending Engineer (R&B), Kakinada and the Executive Engineer (R&B), Kakinada as respondents to the O.A. O.A.No.9987 of 2009 is thus filed without impleading the necessary and proper party viz. the State of Andhra Pradesh in its juristic persona. It is a matter of concern that this infirmity was not pointed out while responding to the O.A. before the Tribunal, by the State officers either. 8. We hope and trust that the State actors and the concerned learned Government Pleaders in future cases would ensure that litigations essentially against the State are not pursued to judgment without the State impleaded as a party. Since a large number of cases are coming to the notice of this Court which are instituted without impleading the State as a party (whenever appropriate) and merely impleading designated authorities under the State, we consider it desirable that the Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh issue a circular to all departments and the respective Government Counsel to ensure that the interests of the State as a ‘juristic’ entity are safeguarded in litigation. It is a trite principle that any decree or relief obtained by any citizen against the state actor where the State ought to be but is not impleaded as respondent, cannot be executed so as to mulct the public exchequer with the consequence of such litigation. Any order obtained against the State without the State being impleaded is not executable against the State. 9. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and since the first respondent has failed to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh as respondent, O.A.No.9987 of 2009 stands dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:15.06.2010 Ccm/Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.5154 of 2010 (Per Hon’ble GR,J) Date:15.06.2010