THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8942 of 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 03.12.2009, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in dismissing O.A.No.2396 of 2006. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Junior Assistant by the second respondent and joined duty on 04.03.1964. He was converted to the post of Typist on 23.07.1964 and again converted as Junior Assistant with effect from 09.05.1978 and pursuant to the scheme of Government, he was appointed to SPP Scale I on 01.04.1981 and thereafter, he was regularly promoted as Senior Assistant and jointed duty on 02.05.1982. 3. Further, it is his case that the fourth respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant on 05.12.1966 and was given SPP Scale II with effect from 1989 and thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 12.01.1990. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent, who is a junior to him, is drawing more pay than him in the cadre of Junior Assistant. But, his request for upgrading his pay on par with the fourth respondent was negatived, which prompted him to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal having considered the date of appointment, category, etc of the petitioner and the fourth respondent held that the fourth respondent cannot be treated as junior to the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the said O.A. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that initially, though the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant, later, he was converted as Typist and again, he was converted as Junior Assistant. Hence, the petitioner is senior to the fourth respondent. The posts of Junior Assistant and Typist are feeder cadre posts for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. When once, the fourth respondent, who is junior to the petitioner has been granted SPP II Scales, the necessary corollary is that the petitioner’s pay also has to be fixed on par with him. The fourth respondent being junior to the petitioner cannot draw more pay than him. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to para 6 of G.O.(P)No.75, Finance and Planning (FW:PC.II) Department, dated 22.02.1994, which reads as under: - “(i) That such of the seniors who were on promotion to the next higher post in the regular line on the date on which the juniors were appointed to the SPP Scale II shall be entitled to the SPP Scale II from the date on which the juniors were appointed to SPP Scale-II. They shall also be entitled to have their pay fixed from that date in the SPP Scale II in terms of F.R.22(a)(i) read with FR 31(2). (ii) That even after fixing the pay as per para (i) above in the SPP Scale-II, if the pay of the junior happens to be more than the pay of the senior, the pay of the senior shall be stepped up to the pay of the junior from the date from which the pay of the junior was more.” 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal is a well-reasoned order, as such, no interference is called for by this Court. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to para- 7 of the said G.O., which reads as under: - “ (a) the senior should have put in 22 years of incremental service (both lower as well as officiating put together) by the date form which the junior was appointed to SPP II scale. (a) That both the junior and senior should belong to the same category in the lower post; and that both should have drawn pay in a same time scale, before the senior was promoted. These orders are not applicable to the seniors who are appointed by direct recruitment to higher post.” 7. We have given our earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. 8. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.117, dated 25.05.198, introducing the Automatic Advancement Scheme. According to which, a person on completion of 10 years of service in a particular scale of pay upto Rs.900-1500 is eligible to be appointed to the Special Grade carrying next higher scale of pay and after completion of 15 years of service he is entitled to be appointed to the Special Promotion post carrying the scale is applicable to the next promotional post in the regular channel of promotion as per employee. 9. The posts of Typist and Junior Assistant are the district cadre posts, i.e., one district is considered as one unit. The seniority is to be maintained district wise by the unit officers concerned separately. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner worked as Junior Assistant in Srikakulam District and the fourth respondent worked as Junior Assistant in Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram Districts. Further, the petitioner and the fourth respondent were initially not appointed in the same category i.e., the petitioner though was appointed as Junior Assistant on 04.03.1964, later was converted to Typist and after about 14 years, he was again converted as Junior Assistant on 09.05.1978, whereas the fourth respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant on 05.12.1966. 11. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner and the fourth respondent not only belong to different districts but were also appointed in different categories of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, in which event, each district being considered as one unit for the purpose of maintaining the seniority list, it cannot be said that the petitioner is senior to the fourth respondent in the cadre of Junior Assistant. 12. Even as per G.O.Ms.No.75, the seniors who were on promotion to the next higher post on the date on which the juniors were appointed to the SPP Scale II shall be entitled to the SPP Scale II from the date on which the juniors were appointed to SPP Scale II, but the same is subject to the conditions contained in para 7 therein, which envisages that both the junior and senior should belong to the same category in the lower post. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner was Senior Assistant, by the date on which the SPP Scale II was granted to the fourth respondent in the cadre of Junior Assistant. But, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 09.05.1978 and the fourth respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant on 05.12.1966. Therefore, in view of the conditions imposed in para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.75, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, he is not entitled to SPP Scale-II i.e, the petitioner is not entitled for fixation of his pay on par with the fourth respondent in the cadre of Junior Assistant. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality or infirmity or irregularity committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order and hence, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ____________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 21st April 2010 dr