*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.6000 of 1999 % 25-01-2008 Between: # B.Srinivasa Rao S/o Krishnaiah, Work Inspector (Non-Technical) A.P.State Housing Corporation, Manchiryala, Adilabad District. …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. …Respondents ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr.K.Chinna Baba ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: None Appeared < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.6000 of 1999 (DATED: 25-01-2008) Between: B.Srinivasa Rao S/o Krishnaiah, Aged about 37 years Work Inspector (Non-Technical) Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer (Housing) AP State Housing Corporation, Manchiryala Adilabad District. ...Petitioner A n d The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.6000 of 1999 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Chinna Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. 2. The writ petitioner was working from 1987 as a Non-Technical Work Inspector with the A.P. State Housing Corporation, a State Government undertaking. It appears his services have been engaged for the purpose of attending to the implementation of Weaker Sections Housing Programme. He is one of the several persons who have been recruited for the said purpose. 3. The State Government have taken a policy decision through their G.O.Ms.No.182, Housing (RH) Department, Dated 13.11.1991 to regularize the services of the Work Inspectors, both Technical and Non-Technical, who have completed a total length of five years of service in the Corporation with prospective effect. Accordingly, the second respondent Corporation had regularized the services of Sri K.V.V.N.Gopal, a Non-Technical Work Inspector at Guntur with effect from 13.5.1992. Similarly, the services of two other Non-Technical Work Inspectors, Sri K.Satyanarayana and Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu of Khammam have also been regularized with effect from 9.5.1992 and 13.11.1991 respectively, whereas the services of the writ petitioner were regularized nearly 5 years later on with effect from 8.8.1996 in terms of another policy decision announced by the State Government through G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.4.1994. Thus, the writ petitioner was aggrieved of the action of the second respondent Corporation in selectively regularizing the services of some of the Non-Technical Work Inspectors with effect from the date on which they completed five years of service in terms of the decision of the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.182, Housing (RH) Department, dated 13.11.1991, whereas such a benefit of regularization with effect from the date of completion of five years of service has not been extended to him. 4. Hence, he has instituted Writ Petition No.17396 of 1995 along with another individual by name Sri V.Uma Maheshwar Rao. A learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the entire matter and by judgment dated 10th September 1996, he has allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991, on completion of five years of service on par with other similarly situated employees. As a measure of compliance of this judgment, orders have been passed by the Managing Director of the second respondent-Corporation on 27.6.1998 regularizing the services of the writ petitioner herein with effect from 10.4.1992 in terms of the orders of the Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 13.11.1991. Thus, parity of treatment between the writ petitioner and other similarly placed Non-Technical Work Inspectors like Sri K.V.V.N.Gopal of Guntur and Sri K.V.Satyanarayana and Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu of Khammam has been restored. However, the Managing Director of the second respondent Corporation while passing orders on 27.6.1998 had added a rider, which reads as under: “with monetary benefit from the date of this order”. 5. Consequently, the monetary benefit has been confined for the period from 27.6.1998 instead of from the date of regularization of the services of the petitioner, namely, 10.4.1992. The writ petitioner had been accorded the benefit of pay fixation on a notional basis with effect from 10.4.1992. In other words, Annual Grade increments have been added to his pay from 10.4.1992 up to June 1998 and thus fixed the pay of the writ petitioner at a stage of Rs.1825/- as on 10.4.1998 in the revised running scale of pay of Rs.1595/- to Rs.3020/-. Though the benefit of pay fixation has been given effect to from 27.6.1998, the writ petitioner has been denied, effectively, the benefit of the pay fixation in the pre revised scale of pay of Rs.860-25-110-30-1470, attached to the post of Non-Technical Work Inspector in the second respondent Corporation with effect from 10.4.1992. 6. It is baffling to note that when such pay fixation benefits were allowed in favour of Sri K.V.V.N.Gopal and two others from the date of their regularization, why the writ petitioner has been denied such a benefit. It is far more baffling to note that when the State Government and the Corporation are parties to the writ Petition No.17396 of 1995, it should have occurred to them that by the judgment rendered on 10th September 1996, this Court, while allowing the writ petition, had directed them to accord similar treatment, which has been accorded to other employees like Sri K.V.V.N.Gopal and Sri K.Satyanarayana and Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu. While seeking to implement the said judgment, the respondents ought not have arrogated to themselves the power to deny the benefit of actual payment in the scale of pay of the post in which the services of the writ petitioner came to be regularized. The respondents, obviously, are not able to recognize the obligation of the State and its instrumentalities to conduct its affairs and business in an absolutely non-discriminatory manner. When once a writ petition has been instituted and the same is allowed, apart from being bound by the writ of this Court, they are expected, as a model employers and all the more so as public servants, to conduct themselves in strict conformity with the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India and in particular, take all such steps and measures, which require of them to honour the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country. Article 14 is an all pervasive protection accorded to the citizens of this country and the said protection is couched in a negative language. It contained an injunction directed against the State not to discriminate its citizens. It is this negative injunction, in hands of the citizens becomes an all-potent right to strike at the actions of the State, which are discriminatory. 7. The respondents have made no attempt whatsoever to establish as to how the writ petitioner alone can be singled out for the purpose of denying him the advantage of pay fixation and actual payment thereof, while similarly placed Non-Technical Work Inspectors such as Sri K.V.V.N.Gopal, Sri K.Satyanarana and Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu were actually given the benefit of the pay fixation itself. The action of the second respondent in confining the monetary benefit to the writ petitioner to be effective from 27.6.1998, the date on which he passed the order, is without any basis, much less a rational and reasonable one. The order of the second respondent dated 27.6.1998, to the extent indicated above, is not only opposed to the principles of law, but is in the teeth of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 17396 of 1995 on 10th September 1996. It reflects a grave error of judgment on the part of the 2nd respondent while carrying out the writ issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.17396 of 1995 on 10th September 1996, if not reflective of the contemptuous attitude. 8. Though notices have been served and the writ petition is pending ever since 24.3.1999, no efforts are made by the respondents either to contest this case or even make known their defence in this regard. I, therefore, find no hesitation to allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to forthwith allow the monetary benefits that flow from the pay fixation to the writ petitioner with effect from 10.4.1992, the date on which his services came to be regularized as a Non-Technical Work Inspector. I also allow costs in the nature of compensation for this unwarranted litigation calculated at Rs.1500/-. The second respondent-Corporation will, at the first instance, pay these costs of Rs.1500/- to the writ petitioner. It is open to the first respondent–State Government and the 2nd respondent Corporation to ensure its recovery by fixing accountability in that regard on Sri Anil C.Punetha, I.A.S, the then Managing Director of the second respondent-Corporation, who has passed the order dated 27.6.1998. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 25-01-2008 Note: L.R. Copy marked (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.6000 of 1999 (DATED: 25-01-2008)