IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27127 OF 1999 Between: Pasagada Papa Rao, S/o.Venkata Swamy, Aged about 50 year, Watchman, R/o.Illisipuram, Srikakulam District. ….PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary, Irrigation and CAD Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Bobbili, Srikakulam District. 3. The Dy. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Palakonda, Sub-Division, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 4. A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Registrar. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. P. REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 10-08-1989 in O.A. No.4876 of 1999 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. 2. The O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal observing that the earlier O.A. filed by the petitioner in O.A. No.1369 of 1995 was dismissed vide judgment 07-08-1997 and the validity of the termination of the services of the petitioner was already adjudicated by the Tribunal in that judgment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that O.A. No.1369 of 1995 was dismissed for the reason that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and subsequently he was acquitted in that criminal case, and thereafter, he filed the impugned O.A. No.4876 of 1999, as such, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the impugned O.A. without going into merits. 4. A perusal of the order in O.A.No.1369 of 1995 would reveal that the same was not dismissed merely because the petitioner was involved in a criminal case. No doubt, there is reference about his being involved in a criminal case, but the order of the Tribunal in that O.A., as referred in the impugned O.A., was on merits also observing that as the services of the petitioner were purely temporary as he was only a contingent employee, the C.C.A. Rules have no application to him. The judgment in the above O.A. has become final. 5. In all the above circumstances, there are absolutely no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 18, 2009. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV/DS