IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24372 of 2006 Between: 1 Special Chief Secretary, TR & B Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in Chief (Administration & Nabarad), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, (R&B) Guntur ..... PETITIONERS AND Shaik Abdul Rasheed, Driver O/o The Superintending Engineer R&B Circle, Guntur .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal Passed in O.A. No. 1005/05, dated 25-8-2006 being illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent : Sri M. Ratna Reddy for R-1 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24372 OF 2006 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed by the respondents against the order made in OA No.1005 of 2005 dated 25-8-2006 on the file of AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. Facts stated are, the respondent herein filed the said OA No.1005 of 2005 assailing the proceedings in Memo.No.48698/Services.VI(1)2004, dated 28-1-2005 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, R & B, Administration and NABARD, Hyderabad-2nd petitioner herein wherein the representation made by the applicant-respondent herein to grant him special promotion post scale-I and special promotion post scale-II was rejected. It is stated that the respondent joined the service as Light Vehicle Driver in the year 1969 in the office of the Executive Engineer (R&B), Special Division-II, Vijayawada, and later he was transferred to CDR Division, Guntur, and on closure of the CDR Division, he has been attached to National Highway Division, Guntur. It is further stated that at the time of appointment, the respondent was having light motor vehicle licence with effect from 13-6-1969 and subsequently he was authorized to drive heavy motor vehicle with effect from 12-5-1972. The claim of the applicant-respondent is that as he is holding heavy vehicle licence from 19-5-1972 onwards, he is eligible for promotion to higher post i.e. heavy vehicle driver and since he was not given the promotion, he is entitled for special promotion post scale-I applicable in respect of heavy vehicle driver with effect from 6-7-1984 in terms of the revised pay scales of 1978, 1986 and 1993 in terms of GO Ms.No.117, dated 25-5-1981 read with GO (P)N2, dated 4-1- 1988 on completion of 15 years and to special promotion post scale-II on completion of 22 years of service. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned order having considered the matter observed that under automatic career advancement scheme framed under the relevant service rules, the applicant- respondent is eligible on completion of 15 service to the scale of special promotion post scale-I more so the applicant was working as heavy vehicle driver and under those circumstances set aside the memo dated 28-1-2005 passed by the 2nd petitioner herein in so far it relates to denying special promotion post scale-I. However as far as grant of special promotion post scale-II, as there was no next promotion from the post of heavy vehicle driver, directed the petitioners-authorities to re-consider the case of the applicant-respondent for grant of special promotion post scale-II as he has completed 22 years of service and on par with similarly placed person Sri Subba Rao, working in Animal Husbandry Department, to whom the benefit of special promotion post scale-II was given, and pass appropriate orders thereon in a time frame. 4. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court as it is an equitable order. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated: 24th June, 2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}