IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 15815 of 2000 Between: B.Rajaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The Union of India, Rep.by Secretary to Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Assailing the order dated 1.2.2000 made in MA No. 1041 of 1999 in O.A No. 1758 of 1999 and the order dated 17.4.2000 in R.A.No.14 of 2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to basic pay of Rs. 455/- with effect from 1.7.1986 in the scale of Rs.425-700 with effect from 18.2.1984 and for all consequential benefits, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner herein filed the above O.A. seeking to declare that he is entitled to basic pay of Rs. 455/- with effect from 1.7.1986 in the scale of Rs.425-700 with effect from 18.2.1984 and for all consequential benefits and since there was delay of seven years ten days, he also filed MA N. 1041 of 1999 seeking condonation of the same in filing the O.A. which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Seeking to review the same, the petitioner filed review application in R.A. No.14 of 2000, which was also dismissed by order dated 17.4.2000. Hence, the present writ petition. As can be seen from the orders impugned, the only reason assigned to condone the delay is that the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.4.1991 and was expecting that the respondents will look into it, but since the same was not responded to, he filed the O.A. This explanation for condoning such a long delay of seven years ten days can hardly be said to be relevant, muchless acceptable. Further, no grounds worth reviewing the order made in the M.A. were demonstrated so as to review the order. We are not satisfied with the explanation for condoning such an abnormal delay of seven years ten days. Consequently, we do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada July 19, 2010 MAS