THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2875 OF 2006 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.5006/1994, the Government has filed the present writ petition. 3. This court granted interim suspension of the impugned orders of the Tribunal on 20.2.2006 in WPMP.MP.No.3546/2006 and for vacating the interim orders, the respondent filed WVMP.No.2974/2007. As both the counsels are heard, the writ petition itself is being taken up for disposal and hence no orders need be passed in the vacate petition. 4. The case of the respondent who is applicant before the Tribunal is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 1.10.1954 under the erstwhile Hyderabad Service and has been allotted to Government of Andhra Pradesh under State Re-organization Act and his services were governed by G. O. Ms. No. 747 dated 6.5.1957 and G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 7.12.1973. As per the said G.Os., the petitioner is entitled for the first stage promotion in the Government of Andhra Pradesh i.e., the matriculate teacher on acquiring the SGBT qualification in the scale of 81-130 and subsequent scale of Rs.150- 180/200-240 and Rs.290-520 and its corresponding revised scale of Rs.530-850. The case of the applicant is that he underwent S. G. Training and also passed B.A. in the year 1970 and underwent B.Ed. training in March,1973 and further he was promoted as Assistant Teacher on 1.1.1976 as per the proceedings of the respondents dated 19.1.1982 and subsequently he retired on 31.7.1991. His case is that though as Assistant teacher he reached the maximum scale of Rs.81- 130 on 1.10.1968, he was unjustly denied the extension of selection grade scale of Rs.150-180/200-240 due to him from 1.4.1969 as per the above said G.Os. The applicant further referring to various G.Os. sought for extension of benefit under G.O.Ms.Nos.747 and 674 dated 6.5.1957 and 7.12.1973 and consequential arrears of pay, allowances and revision of pensioary benefits. His case is that the Government called for proposals of financial expenditure, in terms of the above said G.Os. from all the concerned for extending the above referred scales in the G.Os. vide proceedings dated 8.11.1984 and accordingly the proposals of applicant were submitted, but no final orders were passed and that his service register were kept with the writ petitioners for extending the above said benefits and the same was returned only in the month of May, 1994 without extension of benefits and hence, he approached the Tribunal in the year 1994. 5. The Tribunal considering the averment of the applicant and as no counter is filed, and further holding that the applicant did not approach the Tribunal in reasonable time and that there are some latches of his part, and taking into consideration the required qualification possessed by the applicant, directed that he shall be given all the benefits, which his juniors were given and accordingly directed the applicant to make appropriate representation. With the said direction, the O.A. was disposed of. 6. From the material on record, it could be seen that the respondent herein was appointed in the year 1954 and as per his case, in the grade of Assistant Teacher he reached maximum scale of Rs.81-130 on 1.10.1968, but he was unjustly denied the selection grade as per the G.O.Ms.Nos.747 and 674 referred to above and that he is due to the selection grade since 1.4.1969 and though he made representations, the scale was not given. Therefore, the cause of action arose for him even during the year 1969 and subsequently he retired from service in the year 1991. But he did not initiate any proceedings before the appropriate forum, agitating his rights within the reasonable time. It is also to be noticed that the applicant did not produce any tangible material either before the Tribunal or before this court about the particulars of his juniors about their eligibility and entitlement and when they were extended the benefits under the above said G.Os. Under these circumstances in the absence of any material, the Tribunal is not justified in directing the writ petitioners to extend the benefits to the respondent, which his juniors were given. Therefore, on the ground of delay and latches, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- T.MEENA KUMARI,J ----------------------------------- - G.CHANDRAIAH,J AVS DATE:10.03.2008