THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23258 of 2000 Dated: 29.6.2010 Between: D. Koteshwar Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar General of India, Commissioner of Census Operation, Ministry of Home affairs, 2/A, Mansingh Road, New Delhi and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23258 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated 23.12.1999 in O.A.No.1659 of 1998, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as Investigator with effect from 20.11.1990 with all consequential benefits such as continuity of service, pay fixation, arrears of pay and allowances. It is the case of the petitioner-applicant that he was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Compiler in the office of the 2nd respondent and in pursuance of the same, he joined duty on 4.11.1969. Subsequently, he was promoted to the next higher grade post of Computer and Statistical Assistant with effect from 1.9.1972 and 6.3.1980 respectively and he was also promoted to the Group B post of Investigator on regular promotion with effect from 20.11.1990 by the Registrar General’s Office order No.11/2/90-Ad.IV, dated 20.11.1990 against one of the temporary posts of Investigator sanctioned for 1991 census work. Subsequently, he was reverted back to his parent post of Statistical Assistant w.e.f. 31.12.1993 due to discontinuance of some temporary posts sanctioned for 1991 census work vide orders of the Registrar General, dated 17.12.1993. The petitioner earlier filed O.A.No.1179 of 1998 challenging his reversion. That O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the 1st respondent therein to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 8.10.1997 and dispose of the same after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing the petitioner. It was also directed that in case, the 1st respondent comes to a conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve the relief which he has sought in the representation, he shall pass a speaking order. In pursuance of the said direction, the representation of the petitioner was disposed of vide letter dated 20.11.1998, promoting the petitioner as Investigator against the ST quota. It is the grievance of the petitioner that if any reversion takes place it has to be done on the basis of the reverse order of seniority as entered in the roster register. The present O.A. is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 20.11.1998. Heard the learned Counsel on record and perused the material on record. In the order impugned herein, the Tribunal observed that one T.B. Ramachander and G.K. Yadagiri filed O.A.No.1071 of 1995, wherein it was ordered that fresh orders of reversion should be issued after applying the principle of reverse order of reservation roster. Further, it is observed that according to the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents, the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1071 of 1995 was implemented and Sri D.Satyanarayanarao was reverted in place of Sri T.B.Ramachander with effect from 28.2.1994 and Sri D.Koteswararao (the petitioner-applicant herein) had also been reverted with effect from 31.12.1993 and that the present petitioner-applicant is not a party in the said O.A and hence the order passed in O.A.1071 of 1995 is not applicable to the petitioner-applicant herein. It is further observed that it is an admitted fact that in the reservation roster the petitioner-applicant was at higher position than T.B.Ramachander and G.K.Yadagiri who were applicants in O.A.1071 of 1995 and it cannot be said that the direction given in that O.A. is not applicable to the petitioner-applicant herein in the light of the emphasis laid down by the Apex Court that similarly placed persons should be given the same relief irrespective of the fact whether they have approached the Tribunal or not. While observing thus, the Tribunal allowed the O.A directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner-applicant for promotion. At that stage, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the petitioner- applicant had already been promoted as Investigator with effect from 20.8.1999 on adhoc basis. On that, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider as to whether the petitioner-applicant is entitled for regular promotion with effect from that date and to pass a suitable order. It was also made clear that the petitioner-applicant is also entitled for consequential benefits on that basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of specific direction issued by the Tribunal, the respondents have not yet passed any orders as on today. Therefore, the learned Counsel seeks a similar direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner-applicant. The fact that remains undisputed is that the petitioner-applicant was appointed as Investigator on 20.8.2009 on adhoc basis and on that, the Tribunal has given a direction to the respondents to examine as to whether the petitioner-applicant is entitled for regular promotion with effect from that date and issue suitable order in that regard. So far, no such orders have been passed by the respondents. The writ petition is of the year 2000. We have perused the order impugned and the material available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, We have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. However, in view of the fact that no orders have been passed by the respondents so far and also the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2000, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feet it a fit case to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders as directed by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the same to the petitioner- applicant. It is also needless to observe that on such order being passed, the petitioner is at liberty to agitate before the appropriate forum, in case, he is aggrieved of the same. Subject to the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 29th June, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO :23258 of 2000 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 29/06/2010