IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.27157 OF 1999 DATED:29.07.2010 Between: S. Peera … Petitioner And The Registrar of Cooperative Societies Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.27157 OF 1999 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of second respondent in not placing the petitioner above respondents 3 to 6 in the seniority list of V - Category of the employees of the second respondent bank, though the petitioner is the eldest among them, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Rule 73(vi)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short, “the Rules”). The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the second respondent to place him above respondents 3 to 6 in the seniority list of the V- Category of employees. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 were appointed by proceedings dt.27.7.1972. The said order of appointment required all of them to pay cash security of Rs.250/- in the Central Bank. All of them were informed that they should join duty on or before 5.8.1972. While the petitioner would assert that all of them paid the security deposit on 31.7.1972 and joined duty on 1.8.1972, the respondents would contend that in so far as respondents 3 and 4 are concerned they joined duty on 31.7.1972, whereas others, i.e., the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 joined duty on 1.8.1972. Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that respondents 3 and 4 did not, in fact, join duty on 31.7.1992, but had joined duty only on 1.8.1972 and the fact that they were not paid salary for 31.7.1992 was itself proof in this regard. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine these disputed questions of fact as, even if the contention of the respondents is accepted and respondents 3 and 4 are held to have joined duty on 31.7.1972 itself, that would not justify the petitioner being denied seniority in terms of Rule 73(vi)(a) of the Rules. The said Rule, for the sake of convenience, is extracted hereunder: “73(vi)(a). Inter se seniority: - The inter se seniority of the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank employees and of the District Cooperative Central Bank employees in the equated cadres in each District shall be fixed by the General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, on the basis of the date of their appointment in the cadres, in which they are working on regular basis including notional promotions, if any, as on 1.4.1987. If the dates of such appointment happens to be the same, the seniority shall be fixed on the basis of age, the elder being placed above the younger. However, in this process the inter se seniority of the Primary Agricultural Development Bank personnel and the inter se seniority of the District Cooperative Central Bank personnel shall not be disturbed.” All that the said Rule requires is that in case two or more persons are appointed on the same day, their inter-se seniority shall be fixed on the basis of age, the elder being above the younger. The fact that the petitioner is older in age, than respondents 3 to 6, is not in dispute. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would assert that, on the ground that respondents 3 and 4 joined duty on the same day i.e., 31.7.1972, the third respondent was placed above the fourth respondent as he was older in age, whereas the petitioner was denied same benefit even vis-à-vis respondents 5 and 6. The distinction between the date of appointment and the date of joining must not be lost sight of. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 were appointed by the very same proceedings dt.27.7.1972, i.e. all of them were appointed on the same day, i.e., 27.7.1972 and they were all permitted to join duty on or before 5.8.1972. Merely because of fortuitous circumstances, some of them report for duty before the others, would not disentitle those who joined later, (but prior to the last date of joining), of the benefit of seniority, as prescribed under the Statutory Rules. The Statutory Rule, i.e., Rule 73(vi)(a) requires age to be taken into consideration when all of them are appointed on the same day. The petitioner, admittedly being older than respondents 3 to 6, was entitled to be placed above them in the seniority list in terms of Rule 73(vi)(a) of the Rules and could not have been placed at the bottom merely because he had joined duty subsequent to respondents 3 and 4. The counter affidavit of second respondent makes a reference to objections being invited to the provisional seniority list, as also to the fact that the petitioner had submitted his objections thereto. Excepting stating that the objections filed by the petitioner were overruled, the respondents have not stated as to how the petitioner was not entitled to be placed above respondents 3 to 6 in the seniority list, as required under Rule 73(vi)(a) of the Rules. The action of the respondents, in denying the petitioner the benefit of seniority vis-à-vis respondents 3 to 6, is illegal. The petitioner is entitled to be placed above respondents 3 to 6 in the seniority list of the Supervisors. Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned Counsel for third respondent, would submit that the petitioner was aged 50 years at the time of filing of the writ petition in 1999, and he must have retired from service by now. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is for fixation of seniority and nothing more. The mere fact that the petitioner has retired from service would not disentitle him from the relief sought for in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:29.07.2010 bnr