THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.5747 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The first petitioner was appointed as Night Watchman on 20.07.1996, on compassionate grounds, whereas the second and third petitioners were appointed as Attenders on 01.05.1985 and 01.08.1989 respectively, in the office of the District Co-operative Marketing Soceity Limited. While so, the District Collector, Kadapa sent a communication, dated 11.03.2003, to the Lt.Colonal, Commanding Officer, Cuddapah/Tirupati sponsoring the petitioners and others as surplus employees. Subsequently, the third respondent appointed the petitioners as Lascars vide proceedings dated 24.06.2003 and their services were regularized vide order dated 15.07.2004. The grievance of the petitioners is that though their services were regularized in the cadre of Lascars, they are deprived of the service benefits i.e., increments, revision of pay scales and encashment of earned leave etc., which are extended to the other similarly situated employees. Hence, they filed O.A.No.6401 of 2006 with M.A.No.2829 of 2007 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the service benefits, namely, revision of pay scales, 2005, annual increments, encashment of earned leave, as illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal having considered the material on record disposed of the O.A. directing the fifth respondent to pass necessary orders on the letter dated 26.09.2005 sent by the first respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to release the service benefits, namely, revision of pay scales, increments, encashment of leave salary etc., to the petitioners and to direct the fifth respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposal sent by the first respondent vide proceedings, dated 26.09.2005. 2. The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating that due to redeployment of the petitioners from their parent department i.e., District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Kadapa, their pay and increments were protected as per rules and they have been sanctioned their normal annual periodical increments from the date that fell due as per their Service Registers. It is also stated that their plea for sanction of service benefits was never rejected and the matter is under consideration before the Government. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the matter, disposed of the O.A. He further contended that the annual increments, earned leave and revision of pay scales of the petitioners cannot be withheld by the respondents unless there is any punishment imposed against them and it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that the other employees of District Cooperative Marketing Services, Kadapa, who were redeployed and absorbed in other offices, were granted annual grade increments and re-fixation of pay scale, and therefore, the petitioners also entitled to service benefits irrespective of the proposal sent by the first respondent to the fifth respondent. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’), which reads as under; “23. Appeal, revision and review of orders of appointment (including promotion) to higher posts:- An order appointing a member of a service or class of service or category, to a higher post by transfer or by promotion may, within a period of six months from the date of such order, be revised by an authority to which an appeal would lie against the order of dismissal passed against a member of a service, class or category. Such revision may be made by the appellate authority aforesaid, either on its own motion or on an appeal filed by the aggrieved member of the service, class or category: Provided that the Government may, irrespective of whether they are appellate authority or not, revise such order of appointment after the expiry of the period of six months aforesaid, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. Provided further that no order of revision under this rule shall be passed unless the person likely to be affected by such revision is given an opportunity of making his representation against the proposed revision.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SURINDER SINGH v. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, C.P.W.D.[1] wherein it was held as under: “The persons employed on a daily-wage basis in the Central Public Works Department are entitled not only to daily wages but are entitled to the same wages as other permanent employees in the department employed to do the identical work. In this connection, it cannot be said tat the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is a mere abstract doctrine and that it is not capable of being enforced in a Court of law. The Central Government, the State Governments and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a Court of law should ill- come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings”. 5. There is no dispute that the services of the petitioners were regularized in the category of Lascars vide order, dated 15.07.2004, passed by the third respondent. It is, no doubt, true that when once the services of the petitioners were regularized, they are entitled to annual grade increments, earned leave, revision of pay scales etc. The respondents in their counter admitted that the pay and increments of the petitioners were protected as per rules and their normal annual periodical increments have been sanctioned to them from the date that fell due as per their Service Registers and that their plea for sanction of service benefits was not rejected at any point of time, but it is temporarily held up for want of clarification from the Government. That apart, the contention of the petitioners that similarly situated employees were granted the service benefits has not been denied by the respondents. Further, the letter, dated 26.09.2005, was not relevant with regard to grant of increments, revision of pay scales and encashment of earned leave etc. in favour of the petitioners. In such situation, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the fifth respondent (though not a party to the O.A.) to pass necessary orders on the letter, dated 26.09.2005, sent by the first respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:03.06.2010. sj [1] AIR 1986 SC 584