IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No. 2159 OF 2001 Between: The additional Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Posts & Telecommunications, Near Old Secretariat, Delhi (Formerly the Director General Audit Posts & Telecommunications) and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Mohammed Abdul Haq .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.10.2000 passed in O.A. No.417 of 2000 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, wherein the said O.A. was disposed of granting the relief to the effect that the respondent herein shall be promoted as Senior Audit Officer with effect from 1.10.1993. The respondent herein was appointed as U.D.C. on 19.1.1956 and promoted as Selection Grade Auditor from 9.12.1969. He was subsequently promoted as Section Officer on 14.12.1974 and further promoted as Selection Grade Section Officer/Assistant Audit Officer on 1.3.1984 and subsequently promoted as Audit Officer from 30.5.1990. He retired from service as Audit Officer on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.1993. The grievance of the respondent herein is that by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 22.9.1992 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, he is entitled for promotion to the cadre of Senior Audit Officer in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 with effect from 1.6.1993, on which date he had completed the qualifying service of three years in the cadre of Audit Officer. According to the respondent, persons who were junior to him in the cadre of Audit Officer were subsequently promoted as Senior Audit Officer by virtue of the above Office Memorandum dated 22.9.1992, but the respondent was discriminated and he was denied the promotion on the ground that by 1.10.1992, on which date the panel for 1992 was prepared, he had not completed the qualifying service of three years. As such, he filed O.A. No. 417 of 2000 and the Central Administrative Tribunal, following the earlier decision in OA No. 1115 of 1998 rendered on an application filed by one E.Krishna Swamy, who was similarly placed as that of the respondent, granted the relief directing that the respondent herein be promoted as Senior Audit Officer with effect from 1.10.1993. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed by the Union of India. It is not disputed that by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 22.9.1992 the persons holding the post of Auditor were entitled for promotion as Senior Audit Officer in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 subject to their completion of three years of qualifying service in the cadre of Audit Officer. It is not disputed that the respondent herein was promoted to the post of Audit Officer on 30.5.1990 and he had completed three years of qualifying service in that cadre on 29.5.1993. Subsequently, on 31.10.1993, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus he was very much in service as Audit Officer and he had completed three years of qualifying service much before he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. But he was denied the benefit of promotion as Senior Audit Officer in terms of Office Memorandum dated 22.9.1992 on the sole ground that by 1.10.1992, he had not completed three years of service in the cadre of Audit Officer. The significance of the date 1.10.1992 has not been specified in the Office Memorandum dated 22.9.1992 and it is nowhere stated in the said Memorandum that only such of those Audit Officers who had completed three years of service on 1.10.1992 alone are eligible for promotion as Senior Audit Officer. It is not disputed that subsequently the Audit Officers, who were junior to the respondent in the cadre of Audit officers, were also promoted as Senior Audit Officer on their completion of qualifying service of three years as Audit Officers on the ground that there was change of policy with effect from 1.1.1993 and the policy was operative prospectively. Thus the Officers who are senior to the respondent and who have completed qualifying service of three years before 1.10.1992 were given promotion as Audit Officers and those Officers who were junior to the respondent in the cadre of Audit Officer were also given promotion as Senior Audit Officers on completion of qualifying service of three years in 1993 and 1994. It is the specific case of the respondent that such promotions to K.Pitchaiah and K. Bhima Shanker were not denied by the writ petitioners. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent alone was discriminated and was denied promotion on the ground that on 1.10.1992, he had not completed the qualifying service of three years in the cadre of Audit Officer. The significance of the date 1.10.1992 is not specified in the Office Memorandum or specifically stipulated that only those Officers who have completed the qualifying service of three years on 1.10.1992 alone are eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Audit Officer. The action of the petitioners in denying promotion to the respondent as Senior Audit Officer amounts to hostile discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is certainly entitled for promotion as Senior Audit Officer inasmuch as he had completed three years of qualifying service in the cadre of Audit Officer by 29.5.1993 from the first day of the month next to the completion of the said period of three years. As such, he is entitled to the said promotion and for the consequential benefits flowing therefrom in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22.9.1992. Therefore, the order dated 15.10.1998 passed by the first petitioner is invalid and unsustainable and the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, granting the relief to the respondent for promotion as Senior Audit Officer, does not call for any interference by this court. The respondent is entitled for the promotion as Senior Audit Officer from 1.6.1993, the date on which he had completed the qualifying service of three years as Audit Officer and for the consequential benefits flowing under the Office Memorandum dated 22.9.1992. Consequently the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy September 13, 2010 MAS