THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B N RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO. 25650 OF 2006 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The petitioner herein who is already aged 62 years and retired as Assistant Engineer, even as on the date of filing of the O A before the Tribunal, files this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia seeking to assail the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 29.11.2005 in O A No. 2942 of 2004 dismissing the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the said application the petitioner sought for setting aside the memo dated 23.2.2004 issued by the second respondent and proceedings dated 3.12.2003 issued by the fifth respondent. The case of the petitioner and grievance only narrowed down to the relief to the extent that his service in Work Inspector Cadre requires to be taken into account and counted as a qualifying service for all further benefits to which he is entitled under the Service Regulations. Hence, the grievance is that said period necessarily has to be counted. After contest by the respondents herein, the Tribunal did not find favour with the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner sought extension of the relief under G O Ms No. 168 Irrigation Department dated 3.4.1984 which contemplated absorption of work charged service of the work charged employees but later become regular government servants to be counted for the purpose of pension in combination with the subsequent government service in relaxation of Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations. The reasons being that the petitioner worked as a Works Inspector from 1.7.1970 to 30.6.2001, for a period of about 6 ½ years, whereas the aforesaid G.O.Ms No. 168 dated 3.4.1984 requires minimum period of qualification of 10 years. It is therefore, only those work charged employees who have completed 10 years of service in the work charged establishment as Work Inspectors and necessarily giving an option to be taken as regular Government servant, either of which being totally absent, the services of the petitioner in the work charged establishment which is hardly 6 ½ years only, is far less than the required period of 10 years and admittedly no such option has been exercised. Therefore, the Tribunal did not find favour with the petitioner and rejected the Original Application. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on consideration of the entire case of the petitioner and on perusal of the material available on record, there is no serious dispute in regard to the aforesaid twin aspects as to non completion of 10 years period as required nor making due option as contemplated under the government order. Even otherwise, it was found by the learned Member of the Tribunal that the petitioner would not even get any extension of benefit under G O Ms No.212 Irrigation and Power (P.A.C.II) Department dated 29.3.1979 nor G O Ms. No. 168 Irrigation (Ser- V) Department dated 3.4.1984. In view of the categorical findings which remained totally unrebutted, now there cannot be any dispute and Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and we are in entire agreement with the same. Hence, there are no merits warranting interference of this Court and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J DATE: 06-09-2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B N RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO. 25650 OF 2006 Date: 6.9.2010