IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3546 of 2000 Between: 1 Union of India Rep.by its Secretary Ministry of Defence New Delhi. 2 The Chief of Naval Staff Naval Head Quarters New Delhi. 3 The Flag Officer commanding-in-chief Head Quarters Eastern Naval Command Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 K.Madhubabau now chargemen-II (Admn( CNAI (V) O/o.Chief Inspector of Naval Arnamal, Naval Arnamal Dept Visakhapatnam. 2 R.Sivakumar now chargeman-II (Admn) CNAI(V) O/o.Chief Inspector of Naval Arnamal, Naval Arnamal Dept Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS 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 To issue a Writ,direction,order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record in O.A.No.1098A/98 on the ﬁle of the Central Admn Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench and quash the order dated 20-8-98 passed in the said O.A. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3546 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order passed in O.A.No.1089-A of 1998 dated 20.8.1998 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The respondents are applicants in the O.A. They ﬁled the above O.A. stating that even though their services had been regularized retrospectively from the date of their appointment, the authorities have not taken any action to revise their seniority. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions disposed of the O.A. with a direction that necessary follow up action pursuant to the appointments of the applicants be taken by issuing a suitable amendment to the existing seniority taking into account the retrospective regularization of the services of the applicants from the date of their appointment. Questioning the said order, the oﬃcial respondents in the O.A. ﬁled the present writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for petitioners has drawn our attention to the Circular dated 24.11.1967 and contended that the persons who are appointed on casual basis, including those in the regular capacity, will be entitled to all the beneﬁts as that of regular employees viz. ﬁxation of pay, grant of annual increments, calculation of leave, pension and gratuity terminal/beneﬁts, three years limit of children education allowances, reimbursement of tuition fees, house rent allowance, traveling allowance, compensatory and other allowances, medical attendance, medical reimbursement and compulsory contribution to General Provident Fund/Contributory Provident Fund, advance of pay etc., excepting seniority, probationary period and grant of quasi-permanancy status. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that the respondents were extended with all the beneﬁts and their services were regularized with eﬀect from 1.7.1989 and their past service was taken into account for other purposes, except seniority. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. It is seen from the proceedings dated 26.6.1995, the authorities have decided to implement the directions of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay with regard to regularization of services from the date of their appointments. In view of the same, we do not agree with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the respondents are not entitled to seniority. Since the services of the respondents were regularized with eﬀect from 1.7.1989, they are entitled to all the beneﬁts including seniority from 1.7.1989. We do not ﬁnd any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, which does not call for any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 31.7.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3546 of 2000 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 31.7.2008