HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P. No.21945 of 2000 Date: 22-10-2009 Between: M.P. Shankar .. Petitioner And The Engineer-in-Chief, I & CAD Department, Erramanzil Hyderabad And others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.21945 of 2000 ORDER: (Per G. Bhavani Prasad,J) The petitioner in O.A. No.1901 of 1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad filed the writ petition being aggrieved by the failure of his original application due to the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.345 of 1999 and batch, dated 07-06-2000. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Mopla, Grade-I in A.P. State Construction Corporation Limited in the pay scale of Rs.240-42 on 22-09-1977 and after abolition of the said Corporation, he was absorbed in Irrigation Department with effect from 01-04-1991 with protection of his scale of pay. The petitioner claimed that he belongs to the category of unskilled workman and he is entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 62, I & CAD (Ser-V) Department, dated 21-05-1996 for being continued in service up to 60 years. His representation to the authorities was not considered and he was retired from service on 30-04-1999 on attaining the age of 58 years. His original application No.1901 of 1999 before the Tribunal was against the said retirement, but he was not given any interim direction by the Tribunal to continue in service. When he filed W.P. No.9734 of 1999 against the refusal to grant any interim direction, the High Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the main application itself. The main application was also dismissed by the Tribunal along with the remaining original applications in the batch without specifically considering the question raised by the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner, therefore, desires that he should be continued till the age of 60 years and that his original application should be allowed reversing the order of the Tribunal. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents also reiterated again that the writ petitioner was retired from service on 30-04-1999 based on the clarification received from the Engineer- in-Chief in terms of A.P. Act 19 of 1997 read with Fundamental Rule No.9. Irrespective of the other considerations involved on merits in the writ petition or in the original application, the fact remains that the writ petitioner was in the category of unskilled workman on his own description and unless he has actually worked during any period, he will not be entitled for the remuneration for the said period. From 30-04-1999, since he was retired from service, of course, against his wish, he never discharged the responsibilities of the job and neither during the pendency of the original application nor during the pendency of the writ petition, there was any interim direction from the Tribunal or the High Court in his favour. As he did not discharge duties in the office in which he seeks to continue till the age of 60, he cannot get any monetary benefit for that period. Beyond the age of 60, he himself is not claiming any right to be in that post. Under the circumstances, the writ petition has become infructuous and superfluous and is dismissed without costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-10-2009 Svv