HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:6620 OF 2000 DATED:19.8.2010. Between: M. Vasanta Kumar …Petitioner And 1. The Secretary, A.P. State Board of Technical Education, Burgula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:6620 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the demand of the petitioner for payment of gratuity, dearness allowance, interest of DA arrears, Earned Leave Encashment and other allowances, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct respondents 2 and 3 to pay the same. The case of the petitioner is as follows: He was appointed as Principal of Sir C.R. Reddy College, Eluru, on 8.9.1990 with basic pay of Rs.2,690/- in the pay scale of Rs.2690-110-3240-120-4440 with D.A. and other allowances as per the Rules of State Government. In the appointment order, it is stated that his basic pay shall be refixed at the appropriate level as and when the scale is revised by the A.P. State Government. The Government revised the scales in the year 1993. But, the Governing Body had not implemented the same in spite of many representations. It is also stated that he resigned on 18.2.1999 on medical grounds and he worked for a period of nine years. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the benefits under the revised pay scales have been extended to the other employees, but the said benefits were denied to him. The 1st respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and no counter affidavit is also filed on their behalf. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked for nearly nine years. In the appointment order of the petitioner, it is specified that his basic pay shall be refixed at the appropriate level as and when the scale is revised by the State Government. In the above circumstances, I feel that it would suffice if a direction is issued to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and effect payments in accordance with the rules. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari Date:19.08.2010 NN HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:6620 OF 2000 DATE:19.8.2010