IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.882 of 2008 Between: Ksheera Sagar Chopra S/o.Ch.Isaiah, R/o. 12-13-677/31, Kimtee Colony, Tarnaka, Hyderabad -17. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Chief Secretary to Govt. of A.P. Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation Ltd. Lalapet, Hyderabad. 3 Accountant General (AFE) Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 4 Prl. Secretary to Finance and Planning Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Memo No. 4949/Dy.II(2)/2004, dt. 27.11.2007 of the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and against principles of natural justice and set aside the same and further direct the respondents to release monthly pension to the petitioner pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.882 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Lower Divisional Clerk in the Directorate of Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1961. He continued in the Government service up to 1967 and thereafter, he opted to work in the A.P. Dairy Development Corporation, Hyderabad-the second respondent herein. He retired from service on 31.07.1995. For the service he rendered in the second respondent, he was extended the retirement benefits. So far as the service between the years 1961 and 1967 in the Education Department is concerned, he was not paid any pension or other retirement benefits. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.25426 of 1999. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 31.12.1999 directing the first respondent herein to take appropriate decision with regard to payment of pro rata pension of the petitioner. In compliance of the same, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.81, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Dy.II) Department dated 13.11.2000 and certain other consequential proceedings were extended. Not being satisfied with that, the petitioner filed W.P.No.902 of 2001. The Writ Petition was allowed, setting aside G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 13.11.2000 and directing the respondents to pass fresh orders, keeping in view, the total qualifying service in the Government from the date of his initial temporary appointment till the date of absorption in the second respondent. W.A.No.1715 of 2005 filed by the first respondent was dismissed. The Division Bench directed that it shall be open to the first respondent herein to pass orders in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations or findings given in the said proceedings. It was in this context, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.49, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (DY.II) Department, dated 23.09.2005. As per this G.O., the petitioner was held entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.21,396/- (Rupees twenty one thousand three hundred and ninety six only) towards commuted value of pension and Rs.3,840/- (Rupees three thousand eight hundred and forty only) towards DCRG. C.C.No.273 of 2005 filed by the petitioner alleging that there was non-compliance with the orders in W.P.No.902 of 2001, which was rejected on 01.12.2005 and it was left open to the petitioner to assail the orders in G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 23.09.2005. Almost similar view was expressed in Contempt Case No.1269 of 2006, filed before the Division Bench. The petitioner submitted representation dated 13.09.2007 reiterating his earlier claims. On a consideration of the same, the first respondent issued memo No.4949/DY.II (2)/2004 dated 27.11.2007 stating inter alia that the claim of the petitioner for monthly pension cannot be accepted since he did not exercise the option within the time stipulated by the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning for the fourth respondent. The narration of the events mentioned above discloses that there was a long drawn legal battle between the petitioner and the respondents in the context of pension for the service rendered by him in the Government, between the years 1961 and 1967. Several directions were issued from the Court and almost similar number of orders from the Government have emerged. One undisputed aspect of the matter is that the claim of the petitioner is restricted to his service in the Government. Any relief vis-à-vis, the said service has to be claimed only in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is clearly barred under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Therefore, irrespective of the nature of orders that may have been passed by this Court in the earlier occasion, the clear bar as to jurisdiction placed by Statute of the Parliament cannot be ignored. On this short count, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It shall be open to the petitioner to work out remedies in accordance with law. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 9th July 2008 RRB