THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.26851 of 2006 Dt.27.10.2009 Between: Chief Accounts Officer, Govt. Central Press, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners and Khaja Ghousuddin .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.26851 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is filed by respondents 1 to 4 questioning the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.11235 of 2002, dated 10.5.2006. The facts, in brief, so far as relevant are as follows: The respondent herein was initially appointed as Lower Division Accountant in the District Treasury, Nalgonda on 25.5.1968. On his request, he was transferred to Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, by proceedings L.Dis.C1/25225/71, dated 9.7.1971. He joined duty in the Government Central Press at Hyderabad on 26.8.1971 and was continued as such. It is claimed by the respondent that when he was transferred to Hyderabad he was an approved probationer in the category of L.D. Accountant having completed his probation by 30.6.1970 vide proceedings Rc.No.2270/A2/1967-70, dated 22.7.1970, of the District Treasury Officer. However, since the said transfer of the respondent was on his request, he was placed last in the rank among the approved probationers in the office of the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press, Hyderabad. It is stated that there were two selection grade posts in the category of L.D. Accountants in the office of the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press and one Teherulla Hussaini, who was also similarly transferred from the District Treasury Office, Nalgonda on request, was appointed in the Selection Grade post as L.D. Accountant with effect from 6.4.1973 and the respondent was also appointed to the selection grade post as L.D. Accountant with effect from 25.5.1973 by proceedings of the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press in Rc.No.2892/Estt.Accts/73, dated 19.7.1973. Later, it appears that the Director of Treasuries on a representation of one Solaman Raju directed the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press, Hyderabad, vide memo No.C3/35936/87, dated 10.5.1988 that the appointment of selection grade post of L.D. Accountant including the respondent herein was not in order as they were not eligible and directed that the appointments of the respondent herein as well as the Teherulla Hussaini be cancelled and to recover the excess amount. Based on the above directions, the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press vide proceedings No.A4(1)/3258/87, dated 22.12.1989, cancelled the appointment of the respondent herein to the selection grade post in the category of L.D. Accountant with effect from 25.5.1973 and ordered recovery of the excess amount. Questioning the same, the respondent filed O.A.No.175 of 1991 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 31.12.1996 allowed the same on two grounds. Firstly, similar orders passed against Teherulla Hussaini was questioned by him in O.A.No.504 of 1994 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed by the Tribunal. Secondly, the order of cancellation and recovery has been passed straight away without any notice the respondent and in view of that the Tribunal while quashing the impugned orders remanded the matter to the official respondents to re-examine the whole position and take decision afresh after giving notice. Thereafter, the official respondents by their further order dated 10.10.2002 in proceedings No.243/AE1/97 reconsidered the matter and on the ground that the cause shown by the respondent is not tenable and on the presumption that the respondent has not put in requisite number of five years service in the unit at Hyderabad once again cancelled the selection grade granted to him in the year 1973 and directed to re-fix the pay and recover the excess amount already paid to him. Questioning the said order and the consequential proceedings dated 22.11.2002 of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the respondent herein approached the Tribunal once again in O.A.No.11235 of 2001. The impugned proceedings were initially stayed by the Tribunal and on the vacate application moved by the petitioners herein, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. and V.M.A together under the impugned order dated 10.5.2006. The Tribunal has taken note of the rule position as well as the similar case of Teherulla Hussaini having attained finality, allowed the O.A. directing the official respondents to cancel the impugned proceedings, granting all the pensionary and consequential benefits. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed by official respondents 1 to 4 in the O.A. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 2.1.2007 ordered notice on the interlocutory application initially, but on 29.7.2008 the application seeking suspension of the order impugned was dismissed. The petitioners herein have approached the Apex Court against the dismissal of W.P.M.P.No.34505 of 2006 by way of S.L.P (C) No.4198 of 2009 and the Apex Court by order dated 13.2.2009 while dismissing Special Leave petition observed that it would not interfere with the interim order of the High Court, but requested the High Court to decide the writ petition within three months from the date of communication of a copy of the order. The writ petition is now listed for hearing and we have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein. Rules relating to the grant of selection grade are categorized under Rule 46-A of A.P.State Subordinate Service Rules and for the sake of convenience they are extracted as hereunder: “Selection Grades introduced in the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of pay rules of 1969. – (1) In this rule “Selection Grade” means the time scale of pay sanctioned by the State Government as selection grade for any class or category of a service. (2) Subject to such order as may be made by the State Government from time to time, one out of every seven posts borne on the cadre of each class or category of a service or class of a service shall be on the “Selection Grade”. Provided that where the number of posts borne on the cadre of any class or category of a service or class of a service is less than seven, one post and not more than one post may be on the “Selection Grade”. (3) The authority competent to make appointments to any class or category in a service shall be the authority competent to make appointments to the posts borne on the Selection grade in that class or category of the service. (4) No person shall be appointed to a post borne on the “Selection Grade” of any class or category unless:- (a) he is an approved probationer in that class or category and has put in a minimum service of not less than five years in that class or category; and (b) in a case where the number of posts borne on any class or category is only one with a selection grade sanctioned in respect of that post, he is an approved probationer in that class or category and has also reached the maximum.” It would be noticed from the above that for grant of selection grade of any class or category, the eligibility is that the employee should be an approved probationer in that class or category and must have put in service of not less than five years in that class or category. It is not in dispute in the present case that the respondent was an approved probationer in the category of L.D. Accountant vide declaration of his probation as early as on 22.7.1970 by the District Treasury Officer, Nalgonda while he worked at Nalgonda with effect from 25.5.1968. Till his transfer to Hyderabad in 1971, he had already put in more than three years. Later after coming over to Hyderabad his case was considered for selection grade as he had put in almost two years of service. Thus, from the statement of facts it is evident that the respondent has fulfilled the requirement of being an approved probationer in the category of L.D. Accountant and had put in the requisite five years making him eligible for selection grade in terms of the rules referred to above. The assumption of the petitioners in the impugned proceedings as well as their contention that the respondent was transferred to Hyderabad on his own and he must fulfil five years of service in the Hyderabad unit and grant of selection grade from 25.5.1973 was found to be not in order is unsustainable. The Tribunal had rightly considered the said contention and rightly found in terms of sub-rule (4) of Rule 46- A of the said Rules that it is necessary that the employee should be an approved probationer and he should have put in requisite five years of service in that class or category and it has no relation whatsoever with respect to the unit he has served. The respondent has served partly at Nalgonda and partly at Hyderabad, which altogether qualified for more than five years period and in view of the fact that he is an approved probationer and granting of selection grade with effect from 25.5.1973 is clearly permissible under Rule 46-A referred to above. Further, it would be noticed that the selection grade given to him as early as in 25.5.1973 and recovery was sought to be made thereafter from 25.5.1973. The earlier O.A.No.175 of 1991 filed by the respondent was rightly allowed by the Tribunal directing the petitioners herein to re- examine the whole issue and pass appropriate orders. However, in the proceedings dated 10.10.2002, impugned in the present O.A., do not show any reconsideration of the matter at all and after noticing the facts and the order of the Tribunal the same order withdrawing the selection grade is passed which is not supported by even Rule 46-A which should have been kept in mind while re-examining the issue. The Tribunal was therefore justified in the said impugned order and rightly interfered and allowed the O.A. From the facts, it is not in dispute that the respondent was transferred to Hyderabad on his request and he was an approved probationer in the category of L.D. Accountant having completed his probation on 30.6.1970 and he was directed to take the last rank among the approved probationers in the Hyderabad unit and the grant of selection grade as per his eligibility therefore could not have been objected by any other employee. The entire proceedings initiated for withdrawing the selection grade to the respondent has therefore resulted in filing of O.As., and writ petition before this Court. We have also been informed that Teharulla Hussaini, who was similarly situated co-employee as the respondent also, suffered similar orders against which he had approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.504 of 1994 which was also allowed by the Tribunal and W.P.No.6462 of 2003 filed by the petitioners questioning the said order also stood dismissed as abated as by then the said Teherulla Hussaini was no more. However, the facts of the present case being identical to the said case, we are of the view that the respondent has fulfilled the requirement under Rule 46-A referred to above, and no interference is warranted with the order of the Tribunal. The orders impugned before the Tribunal shall stand set aside. The O.A. shall stand allowed as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 27.10.2009 kpr