THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTIC G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.13017 OF 1998 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M.Bhaskar Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court of A.P. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamas, declaring the revised orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 19.1.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 12.3.1994 and executive instructions in Memo dated 5.7.1997 as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice, unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in brief is that she was appointed as District Munsif Magistrate by direct recruitment and joined duty on 20.7.1992 with pay fixed at Rs.2,150/- in the time scale of the year 1986 at Rs.2,150-80-2,790-90-3,690 and thus she was drawing a total salary of Rs.4,440/- with usual allowances. In the year 1993, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.162 Finance and Planning (F.W.PC.I) Department dated 20.5.1993 for revision of pay scales to all the employees of State Government with effect from 1.1.1993 with revised pay scale of Rs.3,880-130-4,400-160-5,200-190-6,150-250-7,300- 280-8,140 against the existing scales of the year 1986. The petitioner exercised option in the revised pay scales of the year 1993 with effect from 1-1-1993 and thus her pay scale was fixed at Rs.4,270/- and the monitory benefit was allowed to be drawn from 1.4.1993. Subsequently, the Government entered into agreement with the service associations on 17.12.1993 and on the ground that some of the employees were not getting the benefit of revised pay scales, agreed to revise the pay scales of the State Government employees from 1.7.1992 instead of 1.1.1993 and issued G.O.Ms.No.18 Finance and Planning (FW & PC.I) Department dated 19.1.1994, according to which, the revised pay was made applicable to those employees who were on service or who were appointed prior to 1.7.1992 and as a result of which, the employees who were recruited after 1.7.1992, were not governed by the revised pay sales and they cannot exercise their option in the revised pay scales and the option exercised by the petitioner became nullified. The grievance of the petitioner is that Government cannot impose an arbitrary cut off date to give effect to the revised pay scales in cancellation of the earlier orders. Considering the practical difficulties of the employees appointed after 1.7.1992 and who opted in revised pay scales as on 1.1.1993, the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 12.3.1994 in order to prevent the recovery of excess pay already drawn in terms of the original orders in G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 20.5.1993 and thereby directed to adjust the excess pay already drawn under the original G.O.Ms.No.162 and further issued executive orders in Memo No.50841/367/A.2/PC.1/96 dated 5.7.1997 directing all the heads of Department to refix the pay of employees pursuant to G.Os.Ms.No.18 and 92 and further directed the Audit Officer not to admit salary bills from the month of January, 1998 in the pre- revised scales. Thus the grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the issuance of subsequent G.Os., and preponing the cut off date, her pay scale is not properly fixed and suffered financially and hence sought for declaration of subsequent G.O.s are arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. The leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the writ affidavit and sought for allowing of the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the High Court submitted that the writ petitioner had already resigned from service and by virtue of subsequent G.O.s, no recovery was made and hence no cause of action services and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. From the material on record, it could be seen that as some of the employees were not getting the benefit of the revised pay scales under G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 20.5.1993, the Government revised the pay scale of the employees from 1.7.1992 instead of from 1.1.1993 and accordingly issued G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 19.1.1994 and this policy decision of the Government in financial matters cannot be interfered with by the High Court under the writ jurisdiction. Furthermore by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 12.3.1994 the Government prevented the recovery of excess pay already drawn in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 20.5.1993 and accordingly made amendment to clause © of Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Scales of pay Rules, 1993. The relevant portions at paragraph nos.2 and 3 in G.O.Ms.No.92 Finance and Planning (FW PC.I) Department dated 12.3.1994 are extracted as under for better appreciation: “ 2. The Government have examined the matter in detail. After careful consideration Government have decided and hereby order protection of the emoluments drawn in the pre-revised pay scales in respect of employees who are appointed after 1.7.1992 and for whom the fixation rules in the Andhra Pradesh Revised scales of pay Rules, 1993 do not apply. 3.. . . Amendment In Rule 6 of the said rules, after clause ( c ) the following shall be inserted namely: © The short fall if any, in the basic pay fixed in the revised scales of pay, 1993 compared to the pay, interim relief and Dearness allowance drawn in the pre-revised scales, in respect of employees promoted/appointed on or after 1.7.1992 but before 20.5.1993 i.e., the date of issue of these rules shall also be allowed as personal pay to be absorbed in future increases”. 7. From the above it is clear that the Government have given protection to the employees who were appointed after 1.7.1992 and who drew revised pay scales by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.162. Hence, there is no financial loss sustained by the petitioner and further as already noted above, the policy decision of the Government in financial matters, cannot be interfered with by this court. Furthermore, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court, which is not disputed, the petitioner had already resigned from this service. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, nothing remains for adjudication in the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ T.MEENA KUMARI,J -------------------------------------- - G.CHANDRAIAH,J AVS DATE:05.03.2008