IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.711 OF 2000 Between: 1 M. Eshwaraiah S/o.Narayana Head Record Office, RMS, Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 2 Ch.K.L.Rao S/o.Satyanarayana Head Record Office, Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 3 S.Narasing rao S/o.Rangaiah Head Record Office (SRO) Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad. 4 D.Srinivas S/o.Vithal HRO. Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 5 N.Jagdish S/oLaxmaiah Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 6 Beerappa S/o Pentaiah Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 7 Ch.N.Reddy S/o Anji Reddy Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 8 B.Narsimlu S/o Pentaiah Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 9 A. Kannayya Reddy S/o.Kodanda Reddy Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 10 D.Samba Siva Rao S/o.Vaikuntam Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 11 Syed Khadeer S/o.S.M.Hussain Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 12 B. Rajeswar S/o.Dubbaiah Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 13 S. Raja Reddy S/o. Linga Reddy Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. 14 Tulsi Das S/o Janaki Ram Hyderabad Sorting Division, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Director General Posts, Board of Postal Services, New Delhi. 2 The Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Circle Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendents, RMS 'Z' Division, Hyderabad. 4 The Senior Superintendent RMS, Hyderabad Sorting Division Hyderabad. 5 V.Ramesh, HSG-II, SA Sub Record Office, RMS 'Z' Division, Karimnagar-505 001. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Certiorari' calling for the records relating to the orders passed in O.A.No.1233/94 and Review Application No. 75 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dt.11-9-97 and 8-10-99 respectively and set aside the same as unjust an contrary to the Rules and without any reasons and consequently direct the Respondents-1 to 4 to step up the pay scales of the Petitioners on par with the 5th Respondent and further by declare the action of the Respondents-1 to 4 in denying the opportunity of officiating in the Vacancy without following the senior as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the instructions and Rules and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. D. RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed against the orders dated 11-09-1997 and 08-10-1999 passed in O.A. No.1233 of 1994 and R.A. No.75 of 1997 respectively, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The case of the petitioners is that they along with the 5th respondent were promoted as LSG and HSG-II cadres with effect from 30-11-1983 and 01-10-1991 respectively, basing on the inter se seniority of the personnel in the cadres. There were instructions from the department to the effect that officiating arrangements in the leave vacancies up to 15 days shall be made basing on the office seniority in which the individuals are working. In leave vacancy up to 30 days, the station seniority shall be the basis for officiating arrangements. In the leave vacancy up to 4 months, division seniority has to be reckoned and beyond the period of 4 months, circle seniority has to be the basis for making officiating arrangements in the leave vacancy as the LSG cadre post is a circle cadre post. The further contention of the petitioners is that the official respondents ignoring the above instructions, repeatedly allowed the people of their choice to continue in leave vacancies on officiating basis without having regard to the seniority. On account of the above discriminatory action of the official respondents, juniors were getting more pay subjecting seniors to mental agony. It is further stated that the 5th respondent, who is junior to the petitioners, was allowed to continue in leave vacancy of LSG Supervisory cadre at Karimnagar sorting office in RMS ‘Z’ division from 01-01-1979 to 30-11-1983. At the relevant time, the LSG Supervisory cadre post was a circle cadre post. The petitioners were appointed as Sorting Assistants along with the 5th respondent in RMS ‘Z’ division and continued as such till bifurcation of the division up to 31-12-1985. On account of the fault of the official respondents, the 5th respondent started getting more pay than the petitioners, in spite of the petitioners being seniors to the 5th respondent and they were deprived of the scale of pay on par with the 5th respondent. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for up-gradation of their salary on par with 5th respondent. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, observed that when a temporary vacancy arose, in spite of requests, none opted to work in the leave vacancy on temporary basis and only the 5th respondent opted for the same. As such, he was allowed to officiate. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that if not for the other petitioners, relief be granted to the third petitioner, since he made a representation on 05-031981 to work as LSG SAS. The learned counsel also brought to our notice a copy of the said representation. But, unfortunately this representation was not filed before the Tribunal while the O.A. was considered. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that at the time of review on 08-101999, the representation was filed. It is true, in the Review Order dated 08-10-1999, there is a reference to the representation made by the 3rd petitioner on 05-03-1981 to work as LSG SAS, but even at that time no copy of that representation was filed before the Tribunal. Thus, there is no authentic material to show that there was any representation filed by the 3rd petitioner, as contended. Mere reference to the representation dated 05- 03-1981, at the stage of review, without filing a copy of the same, would not entitle the 3rd petitioner to claim any benefit as the same cannot be accepted to be true as it has been filed too late, that too at the stage of writ petition. Considering all the circumstances, we see no merits in the writ petition and the same fails. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 10, 2009. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PNB/KTL