IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 18687 of 2006 Between: 1 The Secretary to Government Health Medical and Family Welfare (C2) Department Government of A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Health, Government of A.P., Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent, Institute of Mental Health, Government of A.P., Erragadda, Hyderabad 4 The Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital, Government of A.P., Secunderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND B. Padmanabham, Institute of Mental Health, Yerragadda, Hyderabad R/o 5-54/1, Road No.12, Venkateshwara Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad-35 .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" Calling for the records relating to and connected with order dated 4-5-2006 in O.A. No. 96 of 003 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : SRI Y.N. VIVEKANANDA. The Court made the following : ... THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 18687 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order, dated 4.5.2006 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.96 of 2003. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. He filed the above O.A. seeking to set aside the memo dated 26.7.2001 and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent therein to issue orders allowing the benefits of promotion scale to the applicant in the category of Lay Secretary and Treasurer Grade I w.e.f.2.7.1983 to 20.12.1985 with consequential benefits of enhanced pay and allowances with sanction of increments during the above period and to revise his pension and pensionary benefits accordingly with arrears of pay and allowances and enhanced pensionary benefits from 1.10.1990 on the ground that he is entitled for the higher scale of pay in the category of Lay Secretary and Treasurer Grade I w.e.f. 2.7.1983 to 20.12.1985 as he has discharged the duties of Lay Secretary and Treasurer Grade I, which post is higher and having higher responsibilities. The tribunal having relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Others Vs. State of Maharastra & Others[1] and having observed that it is an admitted fact that the post of Lay secretary/Treasurer Grade I does involve higher responsibilities and higher pay scale from 2.7.1983 to 20.12.1985 and that the applicant cannot be denied the difference of pay between the Lay Secretary/Treasurer Grade II and Lay secretary/Treasurer Grade I for the said period and however, though the applicant is entitled to the difference of pay, he cannot claim promotion from the back date and fixation of pay also cannot be allowed in the higher pay scale, set aside the impugned memo and directed the respondents therein to arrange for payment of difference of pay between the pay of Lay Secretary/Treasurer Grade II and Lay Secretary/Treasurer Grade I for the period, the applicant worked as Grade I Lay Secretary/Treasurer from 2.7.1983 to 20.12.1985. Having aggrieved by the same, the respondents-authorities preferred the present writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant and perused the material available on record. As can be seen from the material available on record, it is apparent that the applicant was retired from service way back on 30.9.1990 and he made a representation on 5.11.1998 to allow him the benefits of promotional scale from the date of actual holding the post of Lay Secretary Grade I i.e., from 2.7.1983 to 20.12.1985. But the said representation was rejected and hence, the applicant filed review and the said review was also rejected and then, the applicant filed O.A.No.96 of 2003. On 27.4.2005, the tribunal allowed the claim of the applicant-respondent. Then, the authorities filed W.P.No.20556 of 2005, in which, the order of the tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. On that, the tribunal on 4.5.2006 allowed the O.A. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the applicant was Lay Secretary and treasurer Grade II and he was posted against the post of Lay secretary and Treasurer grade I on his own scale of pay from 2.7.1983 to 19.12.1985 and thus, as on 2.7.1983, the applicant was in his own scale of pay but posted against the higher post and therefore, he is not entitled for regular scale of pay attached to the post of Lay Secretary and Treasurer Grade I as per the sub rule (h) of Rule 10 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. On a perusal of the record, the memo dated 9.5.2000 goes to show that on the representation made by the applicant, it is informed that as per the orders issued in Memo No.554/Ser.D/87- 11, General administration Department, dated 9.2.1989 the practice of making incharge arrangements on their own pay scales is prohibited and accordingly, a sub-rule has been incorporated as Rule 10(h) in the Revised A.P. state and Subordinate Service rules, 1996 issued in G.O.Ms.No.436, G.A.(Ser.D) Dept., dated 15.10.1996. The tribunal has lost of sight of the above provisions, which prohibit even the incharge arrangements. When there is a prohibition even for the incharge arrangements, the question of payment of the pay in that grade, does not arise. Apart from that, the applicant has filed a representation 8 years after his retirement, seeking to grant him the difference of pay in the post in question. Even the approach of the applicant at this length of time, is not a bonafide one in the light of the above rule. Under the above facts and circumstances coupled with sub rule (h) of rule 10 of the A.P. State subordinate and Service Rules, We feel that the authorities are perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the applicant and therefore, the tribunal has erred in allowing the O.A. Consequently, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order of the tribunal. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date: 12th March, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 18687 of 2006 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 12/03/2008 [1] AIR 1974 SC 259