HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26982 of 2006 Between: G. Viswanadham …Petitioner And Deputy Director/District Treasury, Kakinada, East Godavari District and others. ….Respondents. :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Government Pleader for Services-II. Counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 : Sri P.V. Subrahmanya Sarma 13th April, 2007 Per G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. This is a petition for quashing order dated 17-11-2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.6548 of 2006 whereby respondent Nos.1 to 4 were directed to re-fix the seniority of respondent Nos.5 to 8 before fixing the seniority of the petitioner herein in the cadre of Senior Accountant in the Treasuries Department. The petitioner joined service as Shroff in the Treasuries Department on 6-6-1986. After three years, his service was regularised and his probation was declared with effect from 5-10-1988. He was promoted as Junior Accountant with effect from 28-10-1991 and as Senior Accountant with effect from 6-4-1999. He filed O.A.No.7515 of 1996 and 1741 of 1997 for regularisation of his service from the date of appointment and fixation of seniority. By an order dated 17-10-2003, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the official respondents to fix the petitioner’s seniority by taking into consideration the services rendered by him from the date of appointment to the post of Junior Accountant by transfer. Writ Petition No.13488 of 2005 filed against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the High Court on 30-6-2005. Thereafter, the competent authority passed order dated 6-9-2006 for fixing the petitioner’s seniority. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 challenged the legality of order dated 6- 9-2006 in O.A.No.6548 of 2006, which was filed on 15-11-2006. After two days, the learned Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal passed the order under challenge albeit without issuing notice to the affected person i.e. the petitioner. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the impugned order read as under: “7. The 5th respondent was promoted as Senior Accountant in 1999, as such, he is junior to the applicants No.1 to 3 and his name is at Sl. No.532. Whereas the 4th applicant and the unofficial respondent No.5 got their service regularised as Junior Accountant and Senior Accountant, on the same date, as such, the unofficial respondents cannot be treated as senior to the applicants herein. After going to the Hon’ble Tribunal and approaching the Hon’ble High Court in various W.Ps., it was subsequently dismissed and the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A.No.7515/1996 and 1741/1997 had become final and binding on the respondents. The respondents were directed to count the seniority of the applicants and, therefore, it is seen that all the applicants in this O.A. are seniors and similarly situated to the 5th unofficial respondent. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to count their seniority as Junior Accountants from the dates of their appointment by transfer as Junior Accountants. But the official respondents have issued the impugned notice dt.6-9-2006, seeking to review the seniority list of Senior Accountants and to re-fix the seniority of the 5th unofficial respondent, above the applicants. 8. From the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both the parties, it is very clear and evident that the applicants have strong case, particularly, when the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.7515/1996 and 1741/1997 had become final and the Hon’ble High Court has also dismissed the W.P.No.7361/2005, which was filed on behalf of the unofficial respondents. 9. The prayer of the applicants in this O.A., is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the seniority of the applicants in the category of Junior Accountants from the dates of their initial appointment, by recruitment by transfer, as Junior Accountant and consequently, to review the seniority of the applicants, in the category of Senior Accountants and without undertaking such review and re-fixing the seniority of the applicants, the respondents have re-fixed the seniority of the unofficial respondent No.5. Therefore, the impugned notice dt.6-9-2006 is illegal and contrary to the judgment issued by this Tribunal in the O.As. mentioned above. This O.A. is accordingly disposed of instructing the applicants to approach the respondent authorities within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the respondent authorities shall consider the prayer of the applicants, within a period of 3 months and re-fix their seniority before deciding the seniority of the unofficial respondent. The respondent authorities shall consider the case of the applicants by strictly following the Rules and Regulations, governing the fixation of seniority. The petitioner has questioned the aforementioned order on several grounds including the one that before deciding the application filed by respondent Nos.5 to 8, the Tribunal neither issued notice to him nor he was afforded opportunity of hearing. In Paragraphs 3 and 5 of his affidavit, the petitioner has averred as under: “3. It is submitted that I joined in the Treasury Department as a Shroff on 6-6-1986, thereafter my services were regularised and probation was also declared w.e.f. 5-10-1988 as per proceedings No.A1/10871/89, dt.7-7-1989 of the District Treasury Officer, Kakinada. Later, I was promoted as a Junior Accountant w.e.f. 28-10-1991 vide proceedings in Rc.No.A1/8367/91 and deputed for induction training for the period from 12-7-1993 to 10-10-1993 in the Institute of Administration with Roll No.9326 and I passed the test conducted by the said Institution. I being a Graduate in Arts faculty, the Account test for Subordinate Officers Part-I and Part-II myself passed in June 1992 and December 1990 respectively. Thereafter, I made a representation to the authorities on 3-10-1996 to regularise my services. The authorities failed to consider my representation. I approached Hon’ble APAT by way of filing O.A.No.7515/1996 and also OA No.1741/1997 before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and that time the matter is pending before the Hon’ble APAT, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a G.O.Ms.No.192, Finance and Planning (FW.Admn.III) Dept., dt.18-11-1999 issuing an amendment to the Rule 10 of A.P. Treasury and Accounts Subordinate Service Rules. As per that Rule, all the pending cases for regularisation was considered and regularised their services from the date of initial appointment. Accordingly, the Hon’ble APAT allowed my OAs with a direction, directing the respondents to fix the seniority of mine to reckoning my services from the date of appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Accountant and also consequential benefits including Notional benefits and also monetary benefits within a period of three months. As against the said orders, the Government filed W.P.No.13488/2005, the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court on 30-6- 2005, in view of the earlier batch of writ petitions was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. A copy of the said orders are filed in the material papers for ready reference. The Hon’ble APAT orders dt.17-10-2003 has become final. Thereafter, the Government several requests made by me ultimately decided to fix the seniority of mine by way of issuing a notice to the effected parties in reference No.A2/11498/93, dt.6-9-2006 by the District Treasury Office, Kakinada. In response to the said notices, all the effected parties filed their explanations on 20-9-2006 itself. After filing their explanations, the authorities choosen to consider the case of the respondents 5 to 8 herein with a mala fide intention by suppressing the facts filed the present OA in question i.e OA No.6548/2006. The said OA was allowed by the APAT without giving an opportunity to me and without notice to me allowed the O.A. on 17.11.2006, in view of the said orders and directions of the APAT I am directly effecting in my service and other benefits and which is also contrary to the Government instructions and G.Os. In the said circumstances, I have no alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of filing this writ petition. 5. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice. On this ground alone the above writ petition is liable to be allowed. I reserve my right to file additional affidavit if necessary after obtaining the leave of this Hon’ble Court. The arbitrary action of the respondents is illegal, contrary to law and opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India.” In the counter-affidavit filed by him, Shri B. Pallayya (respondent No.5) has not controverted the petitioner’s assertion that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Tribunal without issuing notice and giving him opportunity of hearing. However, the deponent has averred that the seniority of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in the cadre of Senior Accountants and the Tribunal did not commit any error by nullifying the action of the official respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since it is not in dispute that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the Tribunal without issuing notice to the petitioner and without giving him reasonable opportunity to contest the case set up by respondent Nos.5 to 8, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. It needs no emphasis that while exercising the jurisdiction, power and authority vested in the Tribunal under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’), its Chairman, Vice-Chairman and members are duty bound to comply with the basics of natural justice, which include the rule of audi alteram partem. It must be realized by the functionaries of the Tribunal that the power conferred on them is a judicial power and not an administrative power and they cannot pass orders which give an impression of their disrespect to the basic tenets of the concept of rule of law. The scheme of the Act does not envisage adjudication of the applications made under Section 19 without issuing notice to the opposite parties and, wherever necessary, to other affected persons. If the Tribunal decides applications without issuing notice to the opposite parties, its orders will have to be annulled on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice. The learned Chairman, Vice- Chairmen and members must realize that any arbitrary exercise of power by them will not only give rise to dissatisfaction among the litigating public, but will also increase unnecessary litigation in the High Court. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 17-11-2006 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6548 of 2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the O.A. after issuing notice and giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to file their pleadings and documents. The petitioner and respondents are directed to appear before the Tribunal on June 04, 2007. We hope that in future, the Tribunal will pass orders only after complying with the rules of natural justice so that the necessity of filing similar petitions is obviated. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.34670 of 2006 and WVMP.No.509 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. 13th April, 2007 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. svs