THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23580 2011 07.09.2011 Between: The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education (Intermediate) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, And others. …. Petitioners AND Dr Shaheen Bilquis And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.23580 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This writ petition by the Government of A.P., in Education (Intermediate) Department and Finance & Planning Department and three others is against the order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4613 of 2003 dated 30.03.2009. The writ petition is filed with a delay of more than two and a half years when the first respondent herein (the applicant, hereafter) filed a contempt case being C.A.No.757 of 2010 before the learned Tribunal complaining disobedience of its order in the main original application. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The applicant is a Botany post-graduate and also obtained her Ph.D. She was appointed as part time junior lecturer (PTJL) in 1993. She completed 1,103 working days as on 03.09.1992. Therefore, she filed the original application seeking regularisation in terms of the Government Policy as adumbrated in their order G.O.Ms.No.221, Education Department, dated 20.06.1995. The Tribunal passed interlocutory orders on 16.07.2003 directing the Commissioner of Intermediate Education (third petitioner herein) to consider the grant of minimum scale of pay in revised scales of 1999 as per the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 23.12.1999 if still is in force. By a memo dated 14.02.2005, the Commissioner ordered that the applicant is not eligible for 1999 Pay Scales in view of the Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 11.08.1999. The applicant therefore filed a miscellaneous application being M.A.No.865 of 2005 for amending the prayer. It was allowed. As a result of which, the applicant challenged the Commissioner’s memo dated 14.02.2005 as well. The Government or the Commissioner did not file counter though time was granted till 17.02.2009. The Tribunal considered the only question as to whether the applicant is entitled for minimum scale of pay. While directing the petitioners herein to consider the case of the applicant for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 20.06.1995, the Tribunal followed its earlier order in O.A.No.4238 of 2002 and batch and declared that the applicant is entitled to the minimum scales of pay under PRC 1999 from the date when the revised scales came into force provided that the application was drawing minimum pay scale of PRC 1993. The order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2009 impugned herein became final. The Commissioner passed orders on 13.04.2011 informing the applicant that her request for regularization cannot be considered and that she is not eligible to draw the scales of pay as per PRC 1999. The Government statedly issued orders vide memo dated 01.06.2011 stating that the extension of minimum time scale to the applicant with retrospective effect is not permissible. The applicant then filed contempt case being C.A.No.757 of 2010. The same is pending before the Tribunal. At that stage, the present writ petition is filed assailing the order in the Original Application passed two and a half years ago. This Court heard the submissions of the Government Pleader for Services-I, who while reiterating the petition averments, invited our attention to P.Subrahmanyam Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh[1]. There is no dispute that order of the Tribunal dated 30.03.2009 has become final. There is also no dispute that the applicant is working as PTJL for the last about twenty five years and at present she is paid minimum scale of pay. The only dispute is whether the applicant is entitled to claim scale of pay as per PRC 1999. If the Commissioner has already considered and rejected the same, which is now subject matter of C.A.No.757 of 2010, nothing prevents the petitioners herein to contest the case. This writ petition is misconceived. As the matter is pending before the Tribunal, we decline to examine the contention of the Government Pleader nor we are inclined to consider the applicability of the ratio in P.Subrahmanyam Reddy. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 07.09.2011 Pln [1] 2010 (1) ALT 686 (FB)