HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.2649 of 2006 Between: Y.P. Chandrasekhar Rao …Petitioner. AND Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & others. …Respondents. :: ORDER :: Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.R. Prasad Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Government Pleader for General Administration Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Government Pleader for Finance & Planning 20th FEBRUARY 2006 Per G.S.Singhvi, C.J. This petition filed for quashing the action of Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad, in not correctly fixing the petitioner’s pay in terms of G.O.Ms. No.60, Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, dated 7-5-2003, is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner has not impleaded the employer as party respondent. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Civil Judge vide G.O.Ms.No.87, Home (Cts.C) Department, dated 21-2-1989. He resigned from service with effect from 1-5-2000. The employer i.e., the State Government accepted his resignation. Thereafter, he was relieved by the High Court. In our view, the State Government as well as High Court of Andhra Pradesh are necessary parties for adjudicating the petitioner’s claim in the matter of fixation of his pay and as the petitioner has not impleaded either of them as party respondents, it is not possible to entertain his claim. This view of ours is based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet Mal v. General Manager, Northern Railway. For the reason aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we give liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition by impleading necessary parties. G.S. SINGHVI, C.J. 20th February, 2006. G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. ARS