IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7016 of 1999 Between: 1 S.J.Ravi Kumar, S/o. Dorashamachari, Tirumala, Tirupathi. 2 B.D.Hampannachari, S/o. P.Ranga Swamy Iyengar, Tirumala, Tirupathi. 3 P.R.Varadhan, S/o. P.V.Parthsarthy, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 4 P.Sekhar, S/o. P.V.Parthsarthy, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 5 B.Devendrudu, S/o. B.Timmappa, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 6 S.Narayana, S/o. S.Ramaiah, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 7 V.B.Parthasarthy, S/o. V.Bhashaker, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 8 V.B.Govinda Rajan, S/o. V.Bhashakar, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 9 V.P.Krishan, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 10 U.Venkata Rao, S/o. U.Srinivasarao, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 11 K.K.Ramarishana, S/o. K.Velayudham, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 12 M.J.Aravamudham, S/o. N.Jayaram Iyengar, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 13 K.Periyaswamy, S/o. Kannupillai, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 14 J.Ramachandra , S/o. K.Janardhan Rao, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 15 H.B.Krishna Moorthy, s/o. H.Bhima Rao, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 16 G.Guru Moorthy, S/o. G.Venkatarayulu, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 17 P.Shesdari, S/o. P.V.Parthasarthy, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 18 N.Bhaskar, S/o. N.Venkates, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 19 N.Narasappa, S/o. N.Annaiah, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 20 K.V.Kesavamoorthy, S/o. K.Vasaiah, Tirumala , Tirupathi. 21 V.K.Balaji, S/o.V.K.Ranga Swamy, Tirumala , Tirupathi. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Executive Officer, T.T.D. Tirumala, Tirupathi, Chittoor . .....RESPONDENT 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in implementing the 1986 Revised pay scales with effect from 1/7/92 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent to implement the 1986 revised pay scales, in so far as the petitioner are concerned with retrospective effect from 1-7-1986 and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:SRI P.HARINATHA GUPTA (SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in implementing the 1986 revised pay scales with effect from 01-07-1992 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction directing them to implement the 1986 revised pay scales in so far as the petitioners are concerned with retrospective effect from 01-07-1986. Petitioners, 21 in number, are all Cooks working in canteens under the control of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (T.T.D). They were extended the benefit of the 1986 revised pay scales only with effect from 01-07-1992. Their grievance, in short, is that despite the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the T.T.D, and though the benefit of the 1986 revised pay scales was extended to the Servers employed in the canteens of the T.T.D. with effect from 19-04-1988 i.e. from the date of their absorption in the cadre of Servers, the petitioners were denied the said benefit. Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners, who were Cooks, held more important posts than Servers working in canteens and in as much as the benefit of the 1986 revised pay scales was extended to Servers with effect from 19-04-1988, (the date of their absorption as servers), the petitioners, who were also absorbed by T.T.D. much prior to 1986, ought to have been extended the said benefit atleast from 01-07-1986. Learned counsel would further submit that failure to extend the said benefits to the petitioners is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Sri P. Harinath Gupta, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-T.T.D., would submit that the Board of Trustees of the T.T.D., in their meeting held on 11-03-1998, had resolved to extend the 1986 revised pay scales to the employees of T.T.D. only with effect from 01-04-1992 i.e. the date on which the Sub-Committee appointed by the T.T.D. had recommended for extension of the said benefit. Learned standing counsel would point out that granting the benefit of the 1986 revised pay scales to Servers with effect from the date of their absorption i.e. from 19-04-1998 was pursuant to the orders of this Court in WPMP.No.563 of 1993 in W.P.No.453 of 1993 and that, in the memo dated 10-05-1994, it was made clear that any payment made to them would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Learned standing counsel would, however, express ignorance as to the result of the said writ petition. Except to state that Servers employed in the canteens of the T.T.D. were extended the benefit of the 1986 revised pay scales from the date of their absorption into the service of T.T.D. i.e. from 19-04-1988 pursuant to the orders of this Court, there are no other reasons forthcoming as to why Servers employed in the canteens have been singled out for this beneficial treatment while the said benefit had been denied to the Cooks employed in the very same canteens. While it is no doubt true that extension of revised pay scales, or the date from which the benefit should be extended, are all matters of policy exclusively within the realm of the employer, the fact, however, remains that no class or category can, without valid reasons, be singled out for special treatment. Since the learned standing counsel is not in a position to state what was the final order passed in W.P.No.453 of 1993, and as to whether Servers employed in the canteens of the T.T.D. continued to be paid the 1986 revised pay scales with effect from 19-04-1988, ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are permitted to submit a detailed representation to the Executive Officer, T.T.D., who shall either pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioners or, if it is the Board of Trustees which is the competent authority, he shall place the said representation for consideration of the Board. A reasoned order shall be passed by the respondent or the T.T.D. Trust Board, as the case may be, on the contentions raised, in the said representation, by the petitioners herein. Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the petitioners would submit a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent or the T.T.D Trust Board, as the case may be, shall pass a reasoned order thereupon, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:13-06-2008 Usd To 1. The Executive Officer, T.T.D. Tirumala, Tirupathi, Chittoor . 2. Two CD copies