HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21085 OF 2008 ORDER: This is the 5th writ petition in the series filed by the petitioners herein in relation to the controversy about the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners joined the service of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’) in the Kadapa circle, as Bill Collectors on 19-03-1974 and 14-08-1974. The Regulations framed by the Board provided for appointment of Bill Collectors as LDCs on transfer, in case they acquire the qualification of Bachelors’ Degree. It was in this context that the petitioners were appointed as LDCs through orders, dated 26-03-1980, and 10-04-1980 respectively. However, about 11 years thereafter, proceedings were issued on 05-06-1991 directing that the petitioners shall be deemed to have been appointed as LDCs with effect from the date of their initial appointment as Bill Collectors. Six months thereafter, the said proceedings were cancelled through orders, dated 03-12-1991. Petitioners filed WP No.15533 of 1991 challenging the same. It was allowed on the sole ground that the petitioners were not issued notice. An order was passed by the respondents on 09-05-1995 after issuing show cause notice. That resulted in filing WP No.10265 of 1995. It was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal. The appeal filed by them was allowed, to a substantial extent. 2. Feeling aggrieved by denial of part of the relief in appeal, the petitioners filed WP No.13982 of 2000. It was disposed of on 31-10-2000 with certain directions as to finalization of seniority. The seniority list was prepared on 21-03-2001 on the basis that the petitioners were appointed as LDCs with effect from the date of their initial appointment as Bill Collectors. However, three years thereafter, the respondents cancelled the proceedings, dated 21-03-2001. WP No.3808 of 2004 was filed challenging the said proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed but WA No.1745 of 2005 was filed against the same and the same was allowed, but leaving it open to the respondents to take further steps, after issuing show cause notice. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 24-03-2008 and the petitioners submitted explanations on 22-05-2008. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 29-08-2008, cancelling the seniority of the petitioners and denying them the benefit of appointment as LDCs with retrospective effect. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. The petitioners contend that the benefit of the retrospective appointment was conferred upon them by the appellate authority and that was not at all open the respondents to reopen the same. It is further stated that after re-organization of the Board, subsidiary Organization does not have be power to reopen the issues decided earlier. Other grounds are also urged. 4. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioners on transfer as LDCs was prospective in effect and there was no basis for their claim that their appointment as LDCs must be treated with effect from the date on which they were appointed as Bill Collectors. 5. Heard Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. There was any amount of inconsistency and lack of clarity in the proceedings that have taken place at various stages. The Regulations provided for appointment of Bill Collectors as LDCs on transfer, in case the incumbents possess the degree qualification. Before it came to be amended, the qualifications were inferior. Certain clarifications were issued about the steps to be taken in the light of the revision of qualifications. Relying upon such clarifications, the petitioners were appointed as LDCs through orders, dated 26-03-1980 and 10-04-1980 respectively. About a decade thereafter, they were conferred the benefit of retrospective effect, from the date on which they were appointed as Bill Collectors. There was absolutely no basis for that. The proceedings for cancellation of that benefit were properly instituted. The appellate authority, however, held that the petitioners are entitled for that benefit. 8. The 1st respondent reopened the issue long after the controversy, set at rest by the appellate authority. Apart from the propriety or legality of the same, the fact remains that the petitioners have since retired from service and the controversy as to their seniority has virtually become irrelevant. The petitioners were paid the pay scales for the posts held by them from time to time. It is too late in the day for the respondents to recover the difference of salary after the petitioners have retired from service. 9. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, upholding the impugned proceedings, but directing that there shall not be any recovery from the petitioners. The respondents shall also finalize the retirement benefits, taking their dates of appointment as LDCs on transfer with effect from 26-03-1980 and 10-04-1980. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 12, 2011. KTL