IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26049 of 2006 Between: M. Narasimha Reddy S/o. Gopal Reddy, R/o. Flat No. 407, Chandra Apartments, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home (Police- B) Department, 2 The Director, A.P. Police Academy, Himayath Sagar, Golconda Post, Hyderabad-8 .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the orders passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in M.A.No. 3526 of 2006 in O.A.S.R. No. 14271 of 2006 dt. 10-11-2006 and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled to make his grievance irrespective of the delay by entertaining the O.A. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 10.11.2006, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in M.A.No.3526 of 2006 in OASR No.14271 of 2006. The petitioner was retired from service as Additional Superintendent of Police on 30.10.1996. During 2000, the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.137, Home (Police-B) Department, dated 17.06.2000, and as per the said G.O., he is entitled to notional seniority in the category of Revenue Inspector w.e.f. 27.09.1975 to 21.02.1983 and Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f 24.07.1984 to 11.6.1990. But, the copy of the said G.O., was not at all communicated to him, in spite of his representation, dated 08.09.2006. After obtaining the Xerox copy of the said G.O, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A., to declare the action of the respondents in not granting notional pay fixation under F.R.26(aa) in the category of Reserve Inspector w.e.f. 27.09.1975 and Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f 24.07.1984 and not granting Special Grade Promotion Scale w.e.f. 24.07.1992 in the category of Deputy Superintendent of Police and in the cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police/Director of APPA(Commandant), as illegal and arbitrary. Since there was delay of 1774 days in filing the said O.A., he filed M.A.No.3526 of 2006 for condonation of the said delay and the through order, dated 10.11.2006, the Tribunal rejected the same without assigning any reasons. Hence, this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Tribunal without verifying whether the said G.O. was communicated to the petitioner in time or not and without giving any valid reasons, dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay, and therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned. On the contrary, learned Government Pleader supported the order passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the petitioner was retired from service as Additional Superintendent of Police on 30.10.1996. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.137, dated 17.06.2000 revising the seniority of the petitioner notionally in the cadre of Reserve Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, the same was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the said G.O., only in the month of June, 2006 and immediately, made a representation to the respondents. Hence, there was delay of 1774 days in approaching the Tribunal, but the Tribunal without taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts simply dismissed M.A.No.3526 of 2006 stating that the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of M.A., are not convincing. A perusal of the order impugned would show that the Tribunal has not given any reason while dismissing the application. It simply dismissed the said application stating that the reasons are not convincing. Apart from that, since the petitioner is a retired employee, the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to him to put forth his grievance. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 10.11.2006 passed in M.A.No.3526 of 2006 in O.A.S.R.No.14271 of 2006 is set aside and accordingly, the delay of 1774 days in filing O.A., is condoned. The Tribunal below shall dispose of the O.A. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dated: 02.07.2008. sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (Police-B) Department, 2 The Director, A.P. Police Academy, Himayath Sagar, Golconda Post, Hyderabad-8. 3. 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Services-I, High Court Building, Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}