IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13527 of 2008 Between: 1 The Director General Posts, India., Dak Bhavan Parilament Street,New Delhi-110001 2 The Principal Chief Post Master General, AP Dak Bhavan Abids, Hyderabad 3 The Post Master General , Vijayawada Region Vijayawada 4 The Senior Supdt.,of Post offices, Prakasam Divison Ongole 5 The Director of Accounts (Postal), AP Dak Bhavan Abids,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.Hariprasada RAo, Retd.Postal Dept Employee R/o.Khambampativari STreet, Kandukur Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT 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 an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records with regard to order dated 20.12.2007 in OA.No.565 of 2005 of the Hon`ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary,contrary to law and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records with regard to order-dated 20.12.2007 in O.A.No. 565 of 2007 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary. O.A. No. 565 of 2007 was filed by the unofficial respondent, seeking a direction to certify that he is eligible to hold the post of HSG-I grade and to revise his pension upwards. The same was allowed on the ground that the respondent has drawn pay and allowances in HSG-I grade for the period he officiated and the same should be reflected in computation of pay for pensionary benefits. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent has been awarded OTBP (Operative LSG) and BCR (Operative HSG II) after completion of 26 years of service. While working as Operative HSG-II, the unofficial respondent was promoted to norm based supervisory post of Deputy Postmaster and as Postmaster HSG-II in a Head Post Office at Kanigiri at Kandukur. The unofficial respondent had worked as Deputy Postmaster in HSG Gr.II in a purely supervisory post declared as norm based post. He also had occasions to officiate as Postmaster in HSG-I norm-based post in different spells following the retirement due to superannuation or transfer of the regular incumbent who had been duly cleared by the DPC. The respondent was paid pay and allowances whenever he officiated in HSG-II or HSG-I grades. Pension sanctioning authority has not taken into account pay and allowances drawn in HSG-I Grade while computing the components that counts for pension. Despite several representations, the authorities have not accepted the request of the respondent and the same prompted him to file O.A. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that the unofficial respondent has officiated in HSG-I post from 1.2.2002 to 28.3.2002, 10.4.2002 to 27.4.2002 and from 17.7.2002 till his retirement on superannuation on 31.7.2002 and admittedly he qualified to be considered for HSG-I grade, found that the applicant is eligible for re-fixation of pension after taking into account the service rendered by him as postmaster HSG-I grade. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that since the applicant has drawn pay and allowances in the HSG-I Grade for the period he officiated, the same should be reflected in computation of pay and pensionary benefits and directed the respondents to calculate the pension and pensionary benefits as indicated above and sanction other consequential benefits and complete the exercise within a period of three months. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the unofficial respondent was only officiating and however, he was paid by mistake, pay and allowances, but he cannot claim the pensionary benefits, on the basis of the pay and allowances, since he was only officiating and according to the fundamental Rule 9 , regular service has to be counted for pensionary benefits. Since the respondent has officiated in HSG-I post and he was put on the scale of pay applicable to the said post, the Tribunal was justified in directing to treat the officiating period for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits. It is altogether different that a separate allowance is paid to an employee when he is officiating. This is not one such case. This is a case where the petitioner, when he was officiating, was put on the time scale attached to the post of HSG-I. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-applicant is not entitled to pensionary benefits as per the pay and allowances paid in the post of HSG-I. That apart, respondent retired from service in the year 2002 and the said benefit is sought to be withdrawn after more than five years of his retirement and now it is more than eight years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the Order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is clarified that this order cannot be treated as precedent since the official respondent has already retired from service. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt. 27.06.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2CD copies