HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 5739 OF 2005 Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of August, Two Thousand and ten Between: M.V. Krishnaiah Petitioner AND Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary for Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: This is an unfortunate case where a retired teacher who is aged about 70 years as of today, is fighting for the fixation of pay scale and pensionary benefits as per law. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the letter issued by the District Educational Officer, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry dated 15.3.2004, whereby he was informed that as per the orders issued by the Government in Memo No.47348/)S-1/98-7 Education Department dated 26.2.2000 and other communications, there is no scope at all to consider the request of the petitioner for revising the option from March to October for fixation and payment of arrears and also the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. Except that no other reasons were furnished by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the requirement, on the requisition of the management as per Rules in vogue, he opted for shifting of the increment from March to October. Therefore, unless and until the respondents say that there is no option form exercised by the petitioner in this regard, they could not reject his case. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the revised option exercised by the petitioner in 1979 for shifting the date of increment from March to October is considered, he would not only get arrears but also there will be considerable escalation in the pension i.e. about Rs.2,000/- per month. Even in the counter filed, no proper reasons are furnished nor it is stated that the petitioner has not opted for change of his increment from March to October. Having regard to these facts, I am of the considered view that the impugned order was not passed after considering each and every aspect of the case. The request of the petitioner, which was processed and sent by the Correspondent, District Educational Officer, Director of School Education, was simply rejected saying that there is no scope at all to consider the request of the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents is bereft of reasons and on this ground alone, the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petition on its merits and pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu August 25, 2010 CC within a week //BO// MAS