IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14550 OF 2001 B e t w e e n: Smt. K. Nagamamba and another. - - - Petitioners. A n d Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. - - - 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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are entitled to the 1978 Revised Pay Scale of 800-1450 as revised from time to time on par with he Junior Lecturers with 1st or 2nd Class Post Graduation on the analogy of the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.340, F & P. dated 27-12-1996 with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not extending the said pay scale to the petitioners under the guise of the Govt. Memo. No.3534/CE.III-2/98-4 Edn. Dt. 25-03-2000 (not communicated to the petitioners) and the Proc.L.Dis.No.G5/699/97, dated 25-04-2000 issued by the Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and subversive of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D. Linga Rao. Counsel for the Respondents : G. P. for Education. The court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14550 OF 2001 O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are entitled to 1978 Revised Pay Scale of 800-1450 as revised from time to time on par with Junior Lecturers with 1st or 2nd Class Post Graduation on the analogy of the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.340, F & P., dated 27-12-1996, with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not extending the said pay scale to the petitioners under the guise of the Govt. Memo. No.3534/CE.III-2/98-4 Edn. Dt. 25-03-2000 (not communicated to the petitioners) and declaring the Proc.L.Dis.No.G5/699/97, dated 25-04-2000 issued by the Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and subversive of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners who are Junior Lecturers absorbed in grant-in-aid posts in 1977 and worked up to 30-09-1998. The petitioners are junior lecturers absorbed in grant-in-aid posts. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that according to the revised pay scale 1978, as per G.O. (P) No.235, Finance, Dt.17-07-1979, the junior lecturers possessing the 3rd class post graduation were allowed the pay scale of 750-1300 whereas, Junior Lecturers with 1st or 2nd class Post graduation are allowed the scale of 800-1450. Some of the junior lecturers who were working with 2nd class and 3rd class post graduation qualification approached the Administrative Tribunal to allow higher pay scale of 800-1450 on the ground that there should not be any discrimination basing on the class obtained in their post graduation. The Tribunal considered their prayer and allowed them the higher pay scale of 800-1450. As against this order, the Government filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O. Rt.No.2053, Education, Dt.28-11-1994, implementing the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal extending the pay scale of 800-1450 in favour of 83 junior lecturers who approached the Tribunal. Subsequently, Government issued another G.O.Ms.No.340, F & P., dated 27-12-1996, assigning the pay scale of 800-1450 to junior lecturers who possess the 3rd class post graduation qualification and who did not go to Court with effect from 01-03-1979. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the various G.Os issued by the Government, their department did not extend the benefit to the petitioners even though their position was similar and were discharging the same duties as junior lecturers in Government Aided Colleges with 3rd class post graduation. The petitioners further submit that the second respondent called for their particulars vide Proc. No.699/JC9-1/97, dated 16-09-1997 and issued the impugned proceedings L.Dis.No.G5/699/97, dated 25-04- 2000, informing them that G.O.Ms.No.340, F & P., dated 27-12-1996, issued basing on the directions of the Administrative Tribunal cannot be extended to the junior lecturers of private institutions particularly in view of the financial position of the Government by then. Thus, the second respondent rejected the claim made by the petitioners. Now the point for determination in this Writ Petition is, whether the petitioners are entitled for a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus as prayed for by them? G.O.Ms.No.340, F & P., dated 27-12-1996 was issued by the Government stating that all the junior lecturers irrespective of the class obtained in their post graduation are entitled to the Revised Pay Scale of 800-1450. In the said G.O. the order of the Administrative Tribunal in favour of the junior lecturers and the dismissal of S.L.P. filed by the Government have been mentioned. It was also mentioned in the said G.O. that the benefit was extended to the 83 junior lecturers who approached the Tribunal and to another batch of 72 junior lecturers who possessed 3rd class post graduate qualification who did not approach the Court conferring the benefit by the Government as per G.O. Rt.No.2053, Education, Dt.28-11-1994, enhancing their pay scale from 750-1300 to 800-1450. As could be seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P. Hyderabad, dated 25-04-2000, the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that it was not desirable to extend the benefit to the junior lecturers working in private aided educational institutions particularly, having regard to the financial position where the Government was placed in at relevant time. The proceedings of the second respondent dated 25-04-2000 are not specific that the petitioners are not entitled for the revised pay scales on par with other lecturers who are similarly placed. The second respondent only stated in his proceedings that it is not desirable to extend the higher pay scale of 800-1450 to the junior lecturers who possessed 3rd class post graduation due to the financial conditions of the Government, which existed at relevant point of time. There is any amount of force in the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that merely because the petitioners were working in aided private colleges and since they have not approached the Court, the pay scale applicable to all the similarly placed lecturers shall not be denied to them. It was brought to the notice of this Court about the settled legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court that when one of the employees obtained a relief by approaching the Court, it is accepted that the other employees who are similarly placed are entitled for the same remedy without approaching the court of law. This Court accedes to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that rejection of the claim of the petitioners by the second respondent is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against to the principles of natural justice. The respondents (Government) did not file any counter in the writ petition stating that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for. The Writ Petition therefore deserves to be allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents declaring that the petitioners are entitled to 1978 Revised Pay Scale of 800-1450 revised from time to time on par with junior lecturers who possessed post graduation qualification with 1st or 2nd class and in respect of G.O.Ms.No.340, F & P., dated 27-12-1996 with all consequential benefits, and consequently the proceedings in L.Dis.No.G5/699/97, dated 25-04- 2000, issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education (2nd respondent) being illegal are set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. Date: 26-11-2010. Dsh.