IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.781 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24-06-2008 in W.P.No.13059 OF 2008 on the ﬁle of the High Court) Between: 1 B. Venunatha Babu, S/o. B.G. Krishna Murthy, (Telecommunications), AP TRANSCO, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad - 500082, R/o. Hyderabad. 2 K. Suresh Babu, S/o. K. Ramanaiah, (Telecommunications), APTRANSCO, 220 KV Sub-Station, Ambapuram, Nellore, A.P. R/o. Nellore. ... APPELLANTS AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, APTRNSCO, Vidyutsoudha, Khairathabad, Hyderabad-500082 2 The Joint Managing Director(DRD, Commercial, IPC Reforms and IT) APTRANSCO, Vidyutsoudha, Khairathabad, Hyderabad-500082 3 K.V. Nageswara Rao, S/o. not known to the Petitioners, KTPS'C' Station, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, APGENCO, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 4 K. Somasekhar, S/o. Not Known to the Petitioner, (Telecommunication & I.T.), Office of the Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.P.D.C. Limited, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District., A.P., 5 Smt. M. Sobha, W/o. not known to the Petitioners, Office of the Superintending Engineer, (Telecommunication), 220 KV Sub-Station, APTRANSCO, Mulugu Road, Warangal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for Respondents 1 AND 2: MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4: SRI S. GANESH RAO The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per HC J) Order dated 24-06-2008 passed in W.P.No.13059 of 2008 has been challenged in this appeal. The appellants-original petitioners were aggrieved by fixation of their seniority and therefore they ﬁled the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petition has been rejected on the ground of delay and laches for the reason that seniority of the appellants-original petitioners was ﬁxed by an order dated 19-09-1995 after their services had been regularized. Their seniority was questioned in the aforesaid writ petition, which had been filed in 2008. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellants-original petitioners have approached this court. We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was absolutely justiﬁed in rejecting the writ petition, especially when seniority, which had been ﬁxed by an order dated 19-09-1995, had been challenged by the appellants by filing a writ petition in 2008. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sharma and others v. Union of India and others[1] and has submitted that, looking to the facts of the case, even in the instant case, the delay caused by the appellants in approaching this court be kindly condoned. Upon hearing the learned Advocate and looking to the facts of the case and the judgment referred to hereinabove, we are of the view that the afore-stated judgment would not help the appellants for the reason that it pertained to pensionary rights of the litigants who were before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, seniority had been ﬁxed by order dated 19-09-1995. The present appellants want the said seniority to be changed in 2008, which would invariably aﬀect rights of others as the petitioners claim to be senior to other employees. There is a diﬀerence between the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the present case. By entertaining the proceedings which were pending before the Administrative Tribunal, the persons who were before the Hon’ble Supreme Court would have got re-ﬁxation of pension or some additional amount of pension. No one was likely to be adversely aﬀected, whereas in the instant case, several persons would be adversely aﬀected and the settled seniority list would be disturbed if the writ petition had been entertained. For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the learned single Judge, rightly, did not entertain the writ petition. We too are in agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. ________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 30, 2008 MRR [1] (1997) 6 SCC 721