IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:22088 of 2000 Date:30.09.2010 Between: Madhusudhan Rao Deshpande ..... PETITIONER AND The Managing Director, A.P. Mark Fed., Basheerbagh. .....RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:22088 of 2000 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the proceedings dated 31.07.2000 as arbitrary and illegal, and for a consequential declaration that the petitioner is entitled for fixation of pay under Fundamental Rule 22B as similarly situated persons were extended the said benefit, and to pay arrears consequent to such fixation with bank rate of interest. The petitioner, hitherto employed with the respondent, opted for voluntary retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme on completing 24 years service as a Senior Office Assistant. The respondent had evolved a Voluntary Retirement Scheme through its circular dated 12.06.1998 and, under this scheme, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement. Prior to his retirement from service voluntarily, the petitioner was promoted as an Office Assistant vide proceedings dated 12.05.1993, and his pay was fixed at Rs.1650/-. It is his case that the fixation of his pay is not in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22B and, at their behest, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had informed the respondent, vide letter dated 16.12.1998, regarding the petitioner’s entitlement. The petitioner would also refer to the case of one Sri Y. Eshwara Reddy who opted for retirement, under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, on 31.01.1999 but was given the benefit of difference of pay and, in his case, the condition of Clause 7(V) of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was not invoked. The petitioner would allege that the respondent is practicing a pick and choose method resulting in hostile discrimination against the petitioner herein. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that the letter of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 16.02.1999 is subsequent to his retirement on 31.07.1998, and the said letter does not confer on him any right. The respondent would state that the revision of pay, to the post held by the petitioner, by giving benefit of FR 22B was not extended to any of the promotees till 25.02.1999; Sri Y. Eshwar Reddy, with whom the petitioner sought to compare himself, was working as technical staff, and had opted for retirement in the year 1997 and, since the petitioner retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 1998, no parity could be sought between them. It is further stated that the recovery was effected from the said individual but, in the light of the interim orders of this Court, the amount recovered was paid back to him. The respondent would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get any arrears in view of the prohibition in Clause-7(V) of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The petitioner retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 12.06.1998 on 31.07.1998. The benefit of pay fixation under FR 22B was not effected to any of the promotees prior to 25.02.1999, by which date the petitioner had retired from the service. While the respondent would contend that the case of Sri Y. Eshwar Reddy stands on a different footing, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine the petitioner’s contention of their being similarly situated, and as being discriminated against, inasmuch as the petitioner has chosen not to array Sri Y. Eshwar Reddy as a respondent in the present Writ Petition. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh[1], the Supreme Court held:- “………We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent- authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal / unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again. The illegal / unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law - indeed, wherever it is possible, the court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law - but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act / order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioner's case is similar to the other person's case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the court and seeking the relief. It is not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the Court nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course - barring exceptional situations - would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well- accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi- judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises)……..” In the absence of Sri Y. Eshwar Reddy being arrayed as a respondent in the Writ Petition, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to go into the allegation of discrimination. Further, under Clause-7(V) of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the person, who takes voluntary retirement under the Scheme, is not entitled to claim any arrears at a future date. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition includes a claim for arrears. In as much as the petitioner has, on his own accord, voluntarily retired from service under the said Scheme, he is deemed to have accepted the conditions prescribed therein and would be precluded from making any claims contrary thereto. Since the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1998 prohibits a claim of arrears, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:30.09.2010. Gk. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No:22088 of 2000 Date:30.09.2010 Gk [1] AIR 1995 SC 705