IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 17994 of 2000 Between: Mohd. Giasuddin U.D.R.I. Tahsil Officer, Revenue Department, Gajwel, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Secretary, Revenue Department The Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Land Revenue AP., Hyderabad 3 The District Collector Sanga Reddy, Medak District 4 The District Revenue Officer Sanga Reddy, Medak District .....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 to issue a direction or order or any appropriate Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading to the order dt. 14/12/1999 in OA.No. 49913/1991 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad andquash the same; and to pass such other or further orders deemed just and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.S.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 17994 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Justice G Bhavani Prasad) The writ petition was filed being aggrieved by the orders in O A No. 49913 of 1991 dated 14.12.1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissing the Original Application solely on the ground of limitation. The writ petitioner was regularized as Senior Assistant with retrospective effect and was included in the panel of Deputy Tahasildars for giving notional promotion with effect from 16.8.1978 and since consequential benefits of pay fixation were not given to him, he approached the Tribunal. The writ petitioner was originally appointed as III Grade Clerk on 29.11.1945 and was promoted with effect from 1.11.1956 as Upper Division Clerk with retrospective effect, as per the directions of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and worked as such till retirement on superannuation on 31.1.1985. On a further representation of the writ petitioner and on the clarification from the State Government on being addressed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the Collector was informed by the Government that the writ petitioner and another can be considered for induction into respective panels of Deputy Tahasildars as they were otherwise eligible. The Commissioner, Land Revenue, Government of A P on the representations of the writ petitioner directed taking necessary steps for examining his claim for financial benefit in consequence of the notional promotion with effect from the year 1977 but the other person viz., Sri Md Jamaluddin was given the benefit, and the writ petitioner was not given such benefit. The District Revenue Officer, who made the pay fixation in respect of Sri Md. Jamaluddin, did not do it for the writ petitioner. It is seen from the material papers enclosed to the writ petition that the initial direction from the State Government to consider the notional promotion of the writ petitioner and another was in the year 1987. Further the request of the Commissioner of Land Revenue to the Collector to include the names of the writ petitioner and another in the panel of Deputy Tahasildars was in the year 1988. It was only on 26.8.1991 that the District Revenue Officer made the pay fixation for the other gentleman with effect from 9.10.1973 and had given all the consequential benefits on such pay fixation and obviously due to the discrimination shown against him in spite of standing on the same footing, the writ petitioner was compelled to approach the A P Administrative Tribunal. However, the A P Administrative Tribunal only took into account the retirement of the writ petitioner long before 1991 and straightaway concluded that there was considerable delay on the part of the writ petitioner. The Original Application was dismissed only on the ground of latches and limitation, whereas it can be safely said that it was only after consideration of the notional pay fixation for the other person on 26.8.1991 and not doing the same for the writ petitioner standing on the same footing, that the writ petitioner had the cause of action for the grievance against the respondents, which has to be necessarily remedied. As the case of the writ petitioner was based on unjust discrimination, it has to be remedied by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction and appropriate direction has to be given to the respondents herein. Therefore the orders in O A No. 49913 of 1991 dated 14.12.1999 are hereby set aside and the said Original Application is allowed and this writ petition is consequently allowed directing the respondents to positively consider the request of the writ petitioner for revising his pay fixation in the category of Deputy Tahasildar with effect from the date of his notional promotion to that category. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J DATE:22.10.2009 tvk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 17994 of 2000 Date: 22.10.2009