IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.2061 of 1998 Between: Dr.V.Rajeshwar Rao. … Petitioner And The Regional Engineering College, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Registrar and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Rama Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Sri A.Venkata Ramana for Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy for the Respondent No.3 and R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the senior scale to the petitioner in the revised pay scale of Rs.3000-5000 by reckoning the petitioner’s service with effect from 1985, for which period he has worked as a Lecturer in the University Arts and Science College, Kakatiya University, Warangal, and the period for which he has worked as a Research Scientist in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (for short “CSIR”), as illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to grant the past service benefits for the purpose of granting senior scale. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in respondent No.1-Institution to which respondent No.3 succeeded, on 14-6-1995. Following the UGC recommendations, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.132, Education (E.C.I) Department, dated 10-6-1993, which, inter alia, provided for conferment of senior scale on Lecturers with pre-revised scale of 700- 1600 or revised scale of 2200-4000 on completion of eight years. In respect of the Lecturers drawing the said pay scale and having Ph.D or M.Phil degrees, the said eight years period will be relaxed by three years and one year respectively. The grievance of the petitioner, who, admittedly, holds Ph.D. degree is that the service he had rendered as Lecturer from July, 1985 and Pool Officer in CSIR from January, 1992 to 13-6-1995 (wrongly mentioned as 30-1-1995 in the affidavit) is not taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning five years period for granting him notional promotion in the senior scale. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of respondent No.1, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner’s past service as Lecturer was not taken into consideration because it was a part time service for which he was paid hourly remuneration and that he was not drawing the pay scale as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.132. With regard to the petitioner’s claim for reckoning his past service as Pool Officer, it is stated that the said service did not have any pay scale as envisaged in the said G.O. At the hearing, Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents were not justified in not taking into account the service the petitioner has rendered as Pool Officer in CSIR. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was drawing the salary more than the pay scale of Rs.2200/- as Pool Officer and, hence, he is entitled for the benefit of the service rendered by him as Pool Officer. The relevant portions of the G.O., on the basis of which the petitioner made his claim for the benefit of past service reads as under: “vi. The experience of a person before appointment as Lecturer in a degree college (university/Government/private aided) in an equivalent grade in other colleges (university/government/private aided) in case of Lecturers in Humanities/science and university colleges in case of Lecturers in engineering and the National Laboratories of Research and Development organizations, like CSIR/ICA/DRDO/UGC/APERL/CDO/NGRI/NEERI/ WALAMTARI etc. USC research scientists be counted as qualifying service for placement in senior scale/selection grade but not for seniority in the service”. “For all the University teachers, the university will have its own screening committee and adopt its own procedures based on their statutes etc. and give the university teachers the senior scale or selection grade or the designation of Asst. Professor/Associate Professor as the case may be. Note: (i) …. (ii) Lecturers (pre-revised) Rs.700-1600 or revised Rs.2200-4000 for promotion to Lecturer (Senior scale) (Rs.3000-5000) and/or Lecturer (Selection grade) Rs.3700-5700 will also be entitled to the relaxation in the year of service of by 3 year and 1 year respectively, if they hold Ph.D or M.Phil degree”. In order to claim the benefit of past service, the petitioner shall show that he worked in equivalent grade in other colleges or in the National Laboratories of Research and Development Organizations, like CSIR etc. The fact that the petitioner worked in CSIR, which is a National Laboratory, is not in dispute. However, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the post of Pool Officer is equivalent in grade to the post of a Lecturer. Further, there is no specific plea that the said post carried any pay scale and, if so, such a pay scale is equivalent to the pay scale of a Lecturer. Though in the reply affidavit the petitioner raised a vague plea that he was drawing Rs.2500/- with all amenities, the pay scale structure is not mentioned and no material is placed showing the particular pay scale, which the petitioner was drawing. Ordinarily, it is for the University to consider whether a particular post in a different organization is an equivalent grade to the post of Lecturer or not. It is not possible for this Court to pronounce upon this aspect, as this Court does not have the expertise on the subject. The petitioner failed to show that any recognized expert body has declared that the post of Pool Officer in CSIR is equivalent in grade to the post of a Lecturer. As the petitioner failed to discharge this primary burden, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of past service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two other persons, viz., Dr.L.Ramgopal Reddy and Dr.S.V.S.Ramana Reddy were given a similar benefit. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit it is specifically averred as under: “The college has considered research experience as Scientist-B in the scale of 2200-4000 in respect of Dr. L.Ramgopal Reddy and Dr. S.V.S.Ramana Reddy, who worked under Govt. of India research projects like D.S.T/D.O.E. etc. and the same was added to their Lecturer service in the college as per the provisions in the G.O.”. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has not specifically denied the above-reproduced averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, it cannot be said that Dr.L.Ramgopal Reddy and Dr.S.V.S.Ramana Reddy were similarly placed to that of the petitioner and that respondent No.1 has shown any discrimination between the petitioner and the above mentioned two persons. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:12-12-2008 MNR