THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8051 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GMJ) Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri T.P.K.V. Sastry, learned standing counsel for first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Services I for respondent Nos.2 to 7. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in M.A.No.486 of 2010 along with O.A.(SR)No.2247 of 2010; to set aside the Memo dated 08.01.2010 issued by the first respondent and consequently to direct respondent Nos.1 to 7 to continue the petitioners as they were continued as on 07.01.2010 and to extend all attendant and consequential benefits to them. The petitioners were working as Dhobi, Mali and Sweepers on contingent basis in Medical and Health Department in different places of Mahabubnagar District. They filed O.A.No.4601 of 2002 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay their salary as revised from time to time on par with persons similarly placed and to absorb them as regular employees with regular time scale of pay attached to the post with all consequential benefits from time to time. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal, by order dated 10.06.2009, holding that it was not possible to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners into regular posts, however, directed the respondents to arrange payment of salaries to the petitioners at revised rates from time to time within a period of two months from the date of that order. While so, the seventh respondent addressed a letter dated 04.01.2010 to the first respondent seeking a clarification as to the continuation of the petitioners as contingent workers in the old posts. The first respondent, by Memo dated 08.01.2010, directed the fourth respondent to issue necessary instructions to the seventh respondent for termination of services of the petitioners on the ground that there are no sanctioned posts in G.O.Ms.No.681 dated 29.10.2004. Therefore, the petitioners filed the O.A.(SR)No.2247 of 2010 assailing the Memo dated 08.01.2010 whereby their services were terminated. They also filed M.A.No.486 of 2010 along with O.A. (SR)No.2247 of 2010 seeking permission to file single O.A. i.e., O.A. (SR) No.2247 of 2010 under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’). The Tribunal dismissing the said M.A. by the impugned order, rejected the O.A. filed by the petitioners for common cause of action and ordered that the O.A. was confined to the first petitioner, if he so chooses. The Tribunal observed that there were no sanctioned posts and as the petitioners were working in different institutions, it cannot be said that there was common cause of action and as such the question of permitting the petitioners to file single O.A. does not arise. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal interpreted the Rule in a wrong perspective while dismissing the M.A. and declining to entertain the O.A. and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and contends that since the petitioners are working at different places, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the M.A. whereby the petitioners sought permission to file the O.A. for common cause of action. Here, it is relevant to extract Rule 4(5)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, which reads as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) to (3), the Tribunal may permit more than one person to join together and file a single application if it is satisfied, having regard to the cause of action and the nature of relief prayed for, that they have a common interest in the matter.” While interpreting the said Rule, the Tribunal observed that merely because the order was common that cannot be a common cause of action. The Tribunal further observed that for an example, if four persons were transferred under a common order, it was not proper to permit them to file a single O.A. as transfer was an individual cause of action. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that since the present case relates to the memo issued for termination of services of the petitioners and they intend to challenge the same, which is a common cause of action, thus the above observations of the Tribunal do not stand good and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside requiring the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in M.A.No.486 of 2010 along with O.A.(SR)No.2247 of 2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 12th April, 2010 GHN