IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26659 of 1999 Between: 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi. 3 The Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune. 4 The Chief Engineer, (Navy) Station Road, Visakhapatnam. 5 The Commander Works Engineers, Station Road, Visakhapatnam. 6 The Garrison Engineer, (Naval Depot), Visakhapatnam. 7 The Garrison Engineer, (Naval Base), Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 K.Nooka Raju, S/o.Sri Ramana, HS-I, Naval Base & Depot, Visakhapatnam. 2 S.Lakshmana Rao, S/o.Appa Rao, HS-I, Naval Base & Depot, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for records in O.A.No.578/96 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the order dt:7.1.1999 passed in the said OA and pass such order or orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MISS T. BALAJAYASREE ADDL. SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. Counsel for the Respondents : MR.G.V.SUBBA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER :: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26659 of 1999 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is ﬁled against the order dated 7-1- 1999 passed in OA No.578 of 1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. 2. The oﬃcial respondents in the OA are the petitioners herein. The case of the applicants-respondents herein is that they were appointed as refrigerator mechanics in MES under the Commander Works Engineers, Station, Vishakapatnam. It is stated that the 3rd petitioner-Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune, issued letter No.133201/TT/POL/EIB(S), dated 23-4-1986 calling for the names of eligible personnel to appear for the trade test for the post of highly skilled grade-I and the 4th petitioner-Chief Engineer Navy, Visakhapatnam, by letter No.11500/15/138/EINB, dated 20-6-1986 sponsored the names of persons who are intending to appear in the said trade test. It is stated that the applicants-respondents herein did not choose to appear for the said trade test in the year 1986-87 and other persons who had appeared for the trade test have passed the trade test availing the one-time relaxation of the condition of putting in three years service in the post of highly skilled grade II, for promoting to the post of highly skilled grade I. It is stated that the applicants- respondents herein, appeared for the trade test in the year 1988 and passed the same and consequent upon which the petitioners herein promoted them as highly skilled grade I, by letter of the Commander Works Engineers No.15033/HIS/122/EINB, dated 24-10-1988, but the date of giving eﬀect to the promotion was erroneously ﬁxed as 15-10- 1985 instead of 15-1-1988. It is stated that on observing this discrepancy, the 3rd petitioner-Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune, by letter No.133401/5/C/CZ/EIB(S), dated 23-12-1989, issued orders to the eﬀect that the date of promotions of the applicants be ﬁxed from the date of their passing the trade test and not otherwise. Basing on the said direction, the 5th petitioner-Commander Works Engineers, Visakhapatnam, issued instructions to the 6th petitioner- Garrison Engineer, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam for amending the date of promotion of the applicants and also to initiate recovery of excess pay disbursed owing to the erroneous pay fixation. Aggrieved by the said action, the applicants ﬁled OA No.1022 of 1990 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. It is stated that the said OA was disposed of by order dated 23-12-1993 with a direction to the 4th petitioner to pass ﬁnal orders on the representation of the applicants. It is stated that the 4th petitioner passed order dated 29-4-1994 modifying the date of promotion of the applicants from 15-10-1985 to 24-10-1988 and ordered recovery of excess salaries paid to them. Aggrieved by the said order, the present OA was filed by the applicants. 3. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter, by the impugned order, allowed the OA on the ground that the petitioners could not produce any material to show that the trade test was conducted during the year 1985-86 by giving one time relaxation and even in 1988, the applicants were allowed to appear for the trade test by the petitioners and consequent upon taking the trade test, the applicants passed the same and their pay and promotion date was ﬁxed accordingly. Assailing the same this writ petition is ﬁled by the official respondents in the OA. 4. Heard Ms.T. Balajayasree, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners could not produce any material to show that the trade test was conducted during the year 1985-86 by giving one time relaxation and such relaxation was not availed by the applicants. Even otherwise, the petitioners on their own volition allowed the applicants to appear for the tread test in the year in 1988 and consequent upon taking the trade test, the applicants passed the same and their pay and promotion date was ﬁxed accordingly. 6. In this view of the matter, we do not ﬁnd any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition, being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated: 23-7-2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}