IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 5916 of 1999 Between: 1 Union of India Rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Defence New Delhi. 2 Director of Navel Armament Inspection Naval Head quarters, Ministry of Defence New Delhi. 3 Chief Inspector of Naval Armament Naval Armament Inspectorate Naval Armament Depot Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND A.Adinarayana Naval Armament Inspectorate Visakhapatnam. .....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,direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records in O.A.No.848/98 on the ﬁle of the Centrarl Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench,Hyderabad and quash the order dated 21st July 1998 passed in the said O.A. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.V.SESHA SAI The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.5916 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Union of India ﬁled this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 21-07-1998 in O.A.No.848 of 1998 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. 2. The respondent ﬁled the above O.A. seeking direction to the petitioners to revise his seniority by counting his casual service with eﬀect from 15-05-1978 and to consider him for further promotion as per Rules. The case of the respondent – applicant was that he had initially joined on 15-05-1978 as electrical ﬁtter on temporary basis and thereafter, his services were regularised on 01-10-1979 by the competent authority, but his seniority was not ﬁxed taking into account his temporary service. His further case is that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, similarly situated employees have been regularised and their seniority ﬁxed taking into account the temporary/casual service and further promotions have been eﬀected. The O.A. was resisted contending, inter alia, that the seniority will be reckoned from the date of his appointment in the regular cadre and that the applicant was appointed as Senior Chargeman (Mech.) as direct recruitee on 15-05-1978. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, and relying upon its order dated 02-1-1996 in O.A.No.1043 of 1994 (S.V.RAMANAMURTHY Vs. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE), directed the petitioners to ﬁx the seniority of the applicant from the date of his initial engagement i.e. 15-05-1978 and to consider his case for promotion as per Rules, after ﬁxation of such seniority. Aggrieved thereby, Union of India preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned standing counsel for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record. 4. Learned standing counsel for petitioners contended that the Government of India issued a Circular dated 24-11-1967 as amended on 27-05-1980 wherein it is stated that the persons who are engaged on casual basis, are entitled to all the beneﬁts applicable to a regular employee except seniority. He also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have granted seniority and the relevant Circular was not considered. Learned standing counsel further contended that the O.A. ﬁled before the Tribunal is barred by limitation and the Tribunal ought to have dismissed O.A. as not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent’s juniors have ﬁled O.As and the Tribunal gave a positive direction to grant seniority from the date of initial appointment including seniority. Learned counsel further submitted that C.A.T., Ernakulam Bench, in its order in O.A.No.967 of 1990 and batch, directed the authorities to regularise all the casual employees who were appointed after 27-05-1980, whereas the respondent was regularised prior to 27-05-1980 and therefore, his temporary/casual service has to be counted for seniority and other benefits. 5. We have considered the submissions made on either side. It is seen from the impugned order that the Tribunal had decided the present O.A. on the basis of O.A.No.1043 of 1994, which was disposed of vide order dated 02-01-1996. It is not disputed that order dated 02-01-1996 had attained finality and no material is placed before us to show that the said order is set aside by this Court. When the said order had become ﬁnal and the relief is granted to the applicant relying upon such order, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Coming to the question of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the petitioners have not taken such plea before the Tribunal and in the absence thereof, we are not inclined to decide the same in the writ petition at this stage. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 18-09-2008 bsc