IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY Ad THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 7272 of 2005 Between: 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary to Government, Food & Agriculture Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Marketing and Director of Marketing, BRKR Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND B.Rama Mohan Rao, S/o.Lakshmikantham, Deputy Director of Marketing (Retired), R/o.Eluru, West Godavari 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Ceritiorari" calling for the records connected with order in O.A.No.3736 of 1998, dated 12-11-2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Nooty Rama Mohan Rao The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per GB.J.) The Writ Petition is filed by the Government assailing the order passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A.No.3736 of 1998, dated 12.11.2003. 2. The respondent while working as Assistant Director, Marketing, was imposed with the punishment of deferment of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect by an order dated 29.6.1990. Ultimately the said order was set aside by the Tribunal in the above OA and directed consequential promotion to be given to the petitioner. Against the said order, the Government has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that when the promotion is given with retrospective effect, it has to be regulated under FR.26 (AA) and therefore the employee is entitled only for notional fixation and no monetary benefits will be given to him from the date of the retrospective effect and hence the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 4. We have also heard Mr.Nooty Ram Mohan Rao appearing for the respondent. 5. In this case admittedly when the punishment was set aside, the respondent ought to have been considered as if there is no punishment. That is the reason why the promotion was directed to be given from the date when his immediate junior was given promotion. In such a situation the Tribunal held that application of FR.26 (AA) does not arise in this case and allowed the OA. After perusing the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any flaw in the said order. When once the punishment was set aside, the respondent is entitled for all the benefits, which he could have got but for the punishment order. Thus, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the Government shall implement the orders of the Tribunal within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------ (G.BIKSHAPATHY, J.) 19th April, 2005. ------------------------------ (P.S.NARAYANA, J.) SSR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Secretary to Government, Food & Agriculture Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Marketing and Director of Marketing, BRKR Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 4 2 CCs to G.P. for Services-I, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}