IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 470 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Inspector General Police, AP SP Battalions Hyderabad 3 The Commandant, SAR CPL,., Amberpet, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt.K.Saroja, W/o. Late K.Papi Reddy H.No.2-3-47/A/198, Patelnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad .....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 issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with order dated 22.3.2007 in OA.no.5444/06 on the file of the Hon`ble APAT., Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : --- The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :470 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order, dated 22.3.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.5444/2006. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. She filed the above O.A., seeking to set aside the memo dated 5.5.2006 issued by the 1st respondent therein as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to declare that her husband is entitled to be treated as on duty from 28.8.1995 to 2.5.1998, on the ground that on the acquittal recorded in the criminal appeal, her husband was reinstated into service w.e.f.3.5.1998, but the period of removal from 22.7.1997 to 2.5.1998 was treated as not on duty. The tribunal having relied upon the guidelines laid down by the apex Court in a Judgment reported in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration) Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera[1] wherein it is held that if a Government employee is acquitted on appeal or other proceeding, the dismissal or removal order can always be revised and if the Government servant is reinstated, he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to, had he continued in service, held that the applicant is entitled for treatment of the period under removal as “on duty” with all consequential benefits, allowed the O.A. directing the respondents therein to treat the period of removal as “on duty” and pay all the back wages to the applicant and pass necessary orders and pay the arrears and consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the authorities. Heard the learned Government Pleader and perused the entire material available on record as well as the order impugned. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that the applicant, who is the widow of one K. Papi Reddy, a retired Head Constable, filed the above O.A., as the memo impugned therein would have an effect on the family pension. It is an undisputed fact that on the ground of conviction in a criminal case, the husband of the applicant was removed from service and subsequently, on acquittal recorded in the criminal appeal, he was reinstated into service, and later on, he took voluntary retirement on medical grounds and expired on 20.4.2005. The order impugned goes to show that the tribunal has passed the order basing on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision (citation-1 supra). In view of the guidelines laid down by the apex Court in the above citation and in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, We have no hesitation to hold that the order of the tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be precedent in future cases. ________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Dated:17.3.2008 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 470 of 2008 (Division Bench Order delivered by Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 17/03/2008 [1] (1995) 3 SCC 377