IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5629 of 1999 Between: 1 The Director General, Naval Arnament Inspectorate, Naval Headquarters, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2 The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Naval Arnament Inspectorate, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 3 Chief Inspector of naval Armament, Naval Armament Inspectorate, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 T.Anantha Rao, S/o. Late Mohan Rao, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 2 S.Kumar Singh, S/o. Saraju Singh, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 3 GBT Sundari, W/o. Late G.Sarma, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 4 M.Visweswara Rao, S/o. Late Laxmana Rao, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 5 V.Ramamohana Rao, S/o. Subbarayudu, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 6 BVSN Raju, S/o. Appalanarasimha, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 7 V.Sudhakar Raju, S/o. Nookaraju, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 8 S.Rama Rao, S/o. S.Yellayya, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 9 V.Raju, S/o. Venkata Rao, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 10 Ch.Siva Prasad, S/o. Madhava Rao, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 11 V.Seemenoch, S/o. Prakasam, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 12 V.Raghunatha Babu, S/o. Yellayya, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 13 Y.Somababu, S/o. Appalanaidu, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 14 P.Chandrasekhar, S/o. P.Suryanarayana, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 15 R.Simhachalam, S/o. Appa Rao, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 16 Mrs. Kasi Ratna Ranjari, W/o. Gajendera Rao, Working in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Naval Armament, Naval Armament Depot, Visakhapatnam. 17 Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for records in O.A.1018 of 1998 on the file of the Central Administrarive Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the order dated 12th August, 1998 passed in the said O.A. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5629 of 1999 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 12-08- 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.1018 of 1998. The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondents herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed for default against the 7th respondent vide order dated 01-12-2004. The applicants worked as Senior Chargemen (Mech.) and Examiners (Ammunition). Initially, they were appointed on casual basis on various dates and thereafter they were all regularized with effect from the dates given in Annexure-I to the O.A. The very grievance of the applicants before the Tribunal in O.A.No.1018 of 1998 is that the respondent authorities instead of regularizing their services with effect from their initial engagement, they were all regularized on various dates ignoring their casual services. It is further stated that similarly situated persons were regularized with effect from their initial engagement on the basis of the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.259 of 1991, 1043 of 1994 and 1266 of 1994. The Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case, following the earlier orders passed in O.A.Nos.259 of 1991, 1043 of 1994 and 1266 of 1994, disposed of the said O.A. directing the respondents therein to revise the seniority of the applicants based on the date of their initial engagement and fix their seniority suitably as per rules and their further promotions will no doubt be ordered in accordance with the revised seniority. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents therein filed this writ petition. Now the contention of the learned standing counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case, passed the impugned order, basing on the earlier orders passed in O.A.Nos.259 of 1991, 1043 of 1994 and 1266 of 1994. However, the issue involved in this writ petition was considered by a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Earnakularm, in O.A.No.967 of 1990 and batch, dated 01-01-1994, wherein it was held that casual service rendered prior to 27-05-1980 will not count for seniority for those casual employees, who were regularized after 27-05-1980 irrespective of whether intermittent breaks of casual service were condoned or not. It is further stated that the said decision is also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9922 of 1995 in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. M.DHARANI AND OTHERS, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in view of the clear terms of the policy, the Tribunal was not justified in granting to the respondents the benefit of seniority from the date of their initial employment as casual workers. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the claim of the applicants is also barred by limitation, as they were appointed in the year 1980 and they have asked the relief by filing O.A. before the Tribunal in the year 1998. This aspect was not at all considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In this writ petition, though the respondents are served notice, none appeared on their behalf. Further, as referred to above, the writ petition is dismissed for default against the 7th respondent vide order, dated 01-12- 2004. We have gone through the order of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Earnakulam, made in O.A.Nos.976 of 1990 and Batch, dated 01-01-1994. The facts of the said case are squarely applicable to the case on hand. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Earnakulam, in O.A.Nos.976 of 1990 and Batch, dated 01-01-1994, as upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9922 of 1995, we are of the opinion that the applicants are not entitled to the relief granted by the Tribunal in the order impugned and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 12-08-1998. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 29-06-2009 Prv