IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20497 of 1999 Between: 1 K. Ramesh, S/o. Krishna, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 2 P. Moses, S/o. J. Rosayyan, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 3 S. Pullanna, S/o. S.Rajanna, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 4 D. Thavaseelan, S/o. V. Dhanapal, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 5 P. Sathaiah, S/o. Balaiah, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 6 Mohan, S/o. Moulaji, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 7 M. Narsing Rao, S/o. M. Shanker, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 8 Rashid Ali, S/o. Mod. Hamid Ali, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 9 P. Narahari, S/o. Yellaiah, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 10 Sudarshan K., S/o. K. Pentaiah, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 11 K. Srikanth Goud, S/o. K. Ganapathy, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 12 M.K. Buchhiram, S/o. K. Maisaiah, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 13 B. Nageswara Rao, S/o. B. Dhanchakra, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 14 G. Arun Kumar, S/o. G. Lakshminarayan, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. 15 Md. Taher Hussain, S/o. Md. Hussain, R/o. Hyderabad, C/o. Mr. Moses, H.No. 65, Lal Bazar, Secunderabad 500 015. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Central Administration Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 11. 3 The Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence & Director General Research & Development, Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi - 11. 4 The Director, Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad 500 258. .....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 an order direction or Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records, set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.1099/1998 dated 25th April, 1999 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to pay the over time allowance on par with the similarly situated Security Assistants, Durwans, and Fire Staff with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20497 of 1999 ORAL ORDER : (per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to call for the records relating to the Order dated 25-4-1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No.1099 of 1998 and to set aside the same; and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pay the overtime allowance on par with the similarly situated Security Assistants, Durwans and Fire staff with all consequential benefits. The said O.A. was filed by the petitioners herein seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not making payment of overtime allowance to them in terms of the judgment dated 17-9-1991 in O.A.No.956 of 1989 as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners 1 to 4 are working as Security Assistants, petitioners 5 to 9 and 15 as Durwans, petitioner No.10 as Fire Engine Driver and petitioners 11 to 14 as Firemen in the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad. They were appointed on different dates. They were directed to work on shift basis of duration of 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week. The direction for them to work for 48 hours per week is not correct. The prescribed weekly hours of the 3rd respondent-establishment was only 44½ hours per week. All the industrial and non-industrial workers, except the petitioners, were being paid overtime allowance at single rate from 44½ hours to 48 hours per week and beyond 48 hours at double the rate of wages. Further, similarly situated persons filed O.A.No.956 of 1989 and in pursuance of the Order dated 17-9-1991 passed therein, they are being granted overtime allowance; whereas, the same is being denied to the petitioners. Respondents filed a counter before the Tribunal denying the allegations made by the petitioners. On considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal held that the petitioners joined service accepting the duty hours as per the letter dated 3-9-1985 and if they were not willing to join as per the duty hours, they should have protested against it before joining. Holding so, the O.A. was dismissed. Heard both sides. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held that once the petitioners have accepted the offer made by the employer, they cannot turn round and say that they are entitled to overtime allowance. As the petitioners have joined the organization accepting the duty hours as prescribed by the employer in the letter dated 3-9- 1985, they cannot question the working hours, after a lapse of more than one decade. The Tribunal also rightly found that the petitioners herein are not similarly situated as that of the applicants in O.A.No.956 of 1989 for claiming overtime allowance. The reasons assigned, in the impugned Order, for rejecting the claim of the petitioners are cogent and convincing. The Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) June 12, 2008 ____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk