HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.18482 of 2010 Between: P.Chiranjeevi Babu and others …. Petitioners and The Government of A.P. and another …. Respondents This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.18482 of 2010 ORDER :- (per AGR, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by respondent No.2-the Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., in ROC.No.462/2010- Estt.2, dated 18.06.2010, informing the petitioners that the anomaly in the pay of the petitioners is because of their joining duty on or after 01.07.1986 i.e., after joining of their juniors, though they are seniors as per the seniority list; that since the revised pay scales, 1978, came to an end on 30.06.1986 and the revised pay scales of 1986, came into force with effect from 01.07.1986; that the pays of the petitioners, who joined after 01.07.1986, was fixed in accordance with 1986 pay scales, whereas, the pays of the juniors to the petitioners were fixed initially as per 1978-pay scales and later re-fixed as per the revised pay scales, 1986, since they joined into service prior to 30.06.1986 and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for equation of their pay with their juniors and the question of paying arrears of pay and allowances also does not arise. Petitioners were appointed as Assistants in the High Court service by proceedings dated 27.06.1986 in the time scale of pay of Rs.425-10-455-15- 650. Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 joined into service on 01.07.1986 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 joined into service on 02.07.1986. There is no dispute that their services were regularised by proceedings in ROC.No.5413/87/Estt.3, dated 03.08.1987, as Assistants in which the petitioners were placed at Sl.Nos.4, 6, 9 and 11, whereas G.Srinivasa Rao, B.Chandra Prakash, Indu and M.Nageswara Rao were placed at Sl.Nos.5, 7, 10 and 12. The list of gradation (Seniority) of Assistant Section Officers was issued through memorandum in ROC.No.3122/Estt/05, dated 23.09.2005, as on 01.07.2005. The petitioners submitted a representation on 06.10.2005 bringing to the notice of the respondents the anomaly in fixing the basic pay whereas petitioner No.1’s basic pay was fixed at Rs.6550/- and the scale of M.Nageswara Rao, who is at Sl.No.12 in the regularisation order, was fixed at Rs.6750/-, since his basic pay has been more. Similarly, petitioner Nos.2 to 4, whose pay scales are also lesser than their juniors i.e., G.Srinivasa Rao, B.Chandra Prakash, Indu, the same anomaly should be rectified. By the impugned proceedings, the request made by the petitioners was rejected. On rejection of the request of the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed contending that the Assistants who joined into service on or after 01.07.1986 cannot draw a lesser basic salary than their juniors merely because they joined later, though they are seniors to them as per the seniority list; that nodoubt the revised pay scales of 1978 came to an end on 30.06.1986 and the revised pay scales of 1986 came into force with effect from 01.07.1986, but once the pay of the juniors was initially fixed in accordance with 1978 pay scales and later re-fixed as per the revised pay scales of 1986, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the revised pay scales merely because they joined into service subsequent to their juniors; that the respondents cannot differentiate the pay scales between the same category of employees appointed in one proceedings taking into consideration their joining in service. Quoting the judgment of the High Court in Md.Azmathullah Khan and others v. State of A.P. {1996(2) ALD 887}, the petitioners seeks parity in their pay scales and re-fixation of pay scales on par with their juniors. The Deputy Secretary to Government filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 stating that respondent No.1 is only an advisory body. Since the petitioners are working under respondent No.2, the action has to be initiated by respondent No.2 basing on the Rules and Government Orders. Therefore, their cases have to be considered as per the rules by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2-the Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., filed a detailed counter affidavit admitting that separate proceedings were issued in ROC.No.4665/1986/Estt-3, dated 27.06.1986, appointing 13 persons, including the petitioners to the category of Assistants. In pursuance of the said proceedings, all of them joined in service on different dates i.e., on 30.06.1986, 01.07.1986 and 02.07.1986. After completion of one-year duty period, their services were regularised by proceedings dated 03.08.1987 in accordance with their original seniority in the category of Assistants to which they were appointed. G.Srinivasa Rao, (Sl.No.5) is drawing more pay than Sri K.Subbalaxmi- petitioner No.2(Sl.No.4); B.Chandra Prakash (Sl.No.7) is drawing more pay than G.Swarnalatha- petitioner No.3(Sl.No.6); Indu (Sl.No.10- she voluntarily retired from service w.e.f.30.11.2007) was drawing more pay than A.Vijaya Babu (Sl.No.9); M.Nageswara Rao (Sl.No.12-retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2010) was drawing more pay than P.Chiranjeevi Babu (Sl.No.11). The Government issued the orders vide in G.O.Ms.No.316, dated 13.09.1971 and G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 28.03.1973, to fix the pay of graduate and non-graduate employees of A.P.Secretariat Service working in the categories of L.D.Clerks/Typists and Steno-Typists, who were given the pre-revised scale of Rs.100-5-150 be allowed the corresponding scale of Rs.110-7-180-9-225 irrespective of their qualification. Since the said G.Os were not communicated to the High Court, the employees working in the category of L.D.Clerks/Typists and Steno Typists, could not get the benefit and hence, they filed W.P.No.1479 of 1992 to assign the scale of pay of Rs.110-7- 180-9-225, with consequential benefits from time to time, from 1969 pay scales, which was disposed of on 31.03.1992 with certain observations. Aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred appeals before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.247-251/1993 which was partly allowed on 10.10.2002, confirming the judgment of the High Court in respect of the High Court employees and disallowed the claims of the Subordinate Court employees. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, the Government has decided to implement the judgment and accordingly, issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 03.07.2003, ordering that the L.D.Cs/Typists/Examiners and Copyists working in the High court, are also entitled for the same scale of pay as was been drawing by the secretariat employees, in the same or equivalent posts from time to time from 1969 onwards. Basing on the said orders and in view of the disparity of scales in the year 1969, 1974 and 1978, the Registry revised and re-fixed the pays of the employees who were working in the categories of Assistants/Typists/Examiners and Copyists, in the revised pay scales of 1969, 1974 and 1978 along with all consequential benefits. There was no difference in the pay scales among the Secretariat staff and staff of High Court from 01.07.1986 as the revised pay scales of 1986 came into force from the said date. The pays of the petitioners and their respective juniors are hereunder from the date of their joining duty. Sl.No Name Pay fixed in the revised pay scales of 1986, as on 01.07.1986 Pay fixed in the revised pay scales of 1993 Pay fixed in the revised pay scales of 1998 Pay fixed as per G.O.Ms. No.379, dated 03.07.2003 as on 01.07.1986 1. P.Chiranjeevi Babu 910 2135 5000 -- 2. M.Nageswara Rao 910 2135 5000 970 3. K.Subba Laxmi 910+30 2195+30+30 5150 -- 4. G.Srinivasa Rao 910 2135 5000 970 5. G.Swarnalatha 910 2135 5000 -- 6. B.Chandra Prakash 910 2135 5000 970 7. A.Vijaya Babu 910 2135 5000 -- 8. Indu 910 2135 5000 970 The pays of G.Srinivasa Rao, B.Chandra Prakash and M.Nageswara Rao were revised and re-fixed as they joined in service on 30.06.1986 i.e., prior to the date of effecting the revised pay scales. Since all the petitioners were joined in service on or before 01.07.1986, their pays could not be revised, as the revised pay scales 1986 came into force with effect from 01.07.1986 and all the petitioners were joined on the said date. Sri Dhanunjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the petitioners are seniors to the persons who are at Sl.Nos.5, 7, 10 and 12 in the proceedings for regularisation of their services, they are entitled to the same pays as drawn by their juniors. The date of appointment order alone has to be taken into consideration but not the date of joining into service and they are deemed to have been in service on the date of appointment or as on the date when their juniors were joined in service. We do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that as per Rule 16(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1986, the petitioners’ services can be counted for declaration of probation only from the date of their joining into service i.e., 01.07.1986 and 02.07.1986. Therefore, they cannot be deemed to be in service on 30.06.1986. The persons those who are in service as on 30.06.1986 alone are entitled to the pay scales of 1978, which will come to an end on 30.06.1986 and on implementation of the revised pay scales of 1986, which came into force on 01.07.1986, their pays have to be re-fixed as per the revised pay scales of 1986, since they were already in service as on the date of revised pay scales. But the same is not the case of the petitioners since they joined into service only after implementation of the revised pay scales of 1986 and hence, their pays have to be fixed in accordance with 1986 pay scales. It is now fairly settled that the cut off dates for revising of the pay scales in 1978 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners who are not borne in service and, therefore, they are a different class. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J February 7, 2011 LMV