IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH 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 : 18229 of 1999 Between: 1 Union of India Rep by its Chairman Railway Board, Govt of India Ministry of Railways New Delhi. 2 Chief Personnel Officer South Eastern Railways Garden Reach Calcutta--43 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 B.S.H.Raao S/o. Ramakrishna Rao Sr.Personnel Officer(Constn). S.E.Railway, Visakhapatnam. 2 Central Administrative Tribunal Haka Bhawan Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 May be pleased to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.1113/96 Dt: 16-02-1999 there by issuing appropriate direction of writ or direction there particularly one in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and issue any directions or order as deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and allow the writ petition with cost through out. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent: MR.RAVI CHEEMALAPATI The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.18229 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Union of India represented by its Chairman, Railway Board, Government of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi, filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the order dated 16-02-1999 in O.A.No.1113 of 1996 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. with a direction that the promotion of the first respondent to the Junior scale of I.R.P.S. shall be ante-dated to 01-11-1985 with arrears of pay and allowances in that grade with all consequential and attendant benefits including seniority. 3. The short point that is raised in this writ petition is that though admittedly the first respondent was promoted as Group-A officer as early as in the year 1984, whether the respondent is entitled for treating the period during which he was promoted on ad hoc basis due to exigency, as regular appointment? 4. The fact that the first respondent was appointed in promotional post on ad hoc basis five years prior to his regular appointment in Group- A post is not in dispute. The only contention raised is that he is not entitled to the benefits of a regular promotion when he was appointed on ad hoc basis due to exigency of services. The first respondent was promoted as Group-A officer and his services were, of course, regularised after he was subjected to D.P.C. in the year 1989 on the basis of zonal seniority. 5. There is no necessity of going into all the other details. It is brought to our notice that the first respondent had retired from service as early as in the year 2000 and died thereafter. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that this may be treated as special case and this order will not be a binding precedent for future cases. 6. Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 12-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LOBIS}