THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 3527 of 2002 Dated: 26.7.2010 Between: 1. The State of A.P., rep., by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderbad and others ..... PETITIONERS AND T. Vasudeva Reddy. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO :3527 of 2002 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 31.1.2000 passed in O.A.No.3063 of 1996 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent-applicant herein filed the O.A., seeking a direction to the authorities to consider his representation to step up his pay on par with his juniors in particular to that of one P. Janardhana Reddy and arrange for payment of the arrears forthwith. Some of the juniors who are drawing less pay than him are now drawing higher scales and he submitted a representation to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad on 11.8.1986 for stepping up his salary on par with his junior P. Janardhan Reddy, who was working as Inspector of ACB. On this representation, as no action was taken, he made another representation on 23.5.1994. But his representation was not disposed of. Meanwhile, he retired from service and after his retirement, he made another representation. But no action was taken. Therefore, he filed the present O.A. The authorities filed a counter before the Tribunal stating that the applicant was trapped by ACB and was placed under suspension and he was out of employment from 4.7.1984 to 2.7.1988 and he was convicted in the ACB and SPE Cases and was dismissed from service and in appeal, he was acquitted and then, he was reinstated into service pending departmental enquiry and on reinstatement into service, his case was considered for the panel of DSPs prepared for the year 1991 and was overlooked due to bad record of service and due to pendency of departmental enquiry. Meanwhile, he was overlooked for 1990 and 1991 panels also. Finally, he was promoted as DSP on 6.1.1992. But, in the meanwhile, his juniors were promoted as DSPs. Taking into consideration G.O.Rt.No.2971, dated 14.10.1991, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. directing the authorities to step up the pay and allowances of the applicant on par with his junior P. Janardhan Reddy with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the authorities. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Government Pleader for Services contended that the direction issued by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and there cannot be a positive direction for stepping up the pay of the applicant on par with his juniors. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent- applicant submitted that the authorities have to regulate the period of his suspension as period on duty and fix his pay and allowances and therefore, there is no error in the order impugned herein and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Before going into the merits of the case, the fact that remains undisputed is that in a case filed by A.C.B authorities, the applicant was convicted and sentenced and subsequently, in an appeal filed by him, he was acquitted and thereafter, he was reinstated into service. Thereafter, on the ground that his pay and allowances should be stepped up with that of his junior, he filed O.A.3063 of 1996. The Tribunal by its order dated 31.1.2000, basing on the G.O.Rt.No:2971, dated 14.10.1991 as to the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence and G.O.Ms.No:118, Finance and Planning (Finance Wing P.R.C I) Department, dated 25.5.1981 as to the special increments beyond the time scale, directed the respondents to step up the pay and allowances of the applicant on par with his junior P.Janardhan Reddy with all consequential benefits. In this background of the matter, it can easily be said that this is not a usual case, where the respondent-applicant has been deprived of his benefits due to the mistake or the omission committed by the authorities. However, it is also not proper to restrain the respondent-applicant from claiming his rights as to the stepping of the pay and allowances on par with his juniors. In these peculiar circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is a fit case wherein a direction can be issued to the writ petitioners-authorities to consider the case of the respondent-applicant for stepping up of his pay and allowance on par with his junior in question, if he is otherwise eligible in accordance with the Rules existing. Subject to the modification of the order of the Tribunal to the extent indicated above, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Date: 26th July, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 3527 of 2002 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 26/07/2010