THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.10438 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the order, dated 17.04.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing O.A.No.375 of 2005 filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the memo, dated 30.12.2004, issued by the first respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Principal of the Institute of Advanced Study in Education (I.A.S.E), retired from service on 31.03.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. He states that at the time of his retirement, he was paid U.G.C pay scale of 1996 as Lecturer (Selection Grade) though he is entitled to the revised U.G.C. pay scale of 1996, as Principal, i.e., Rs.16400-22400. On the request made by the petitioner, the second respondent sent proposal to the Government for extension of the revised U.G.C. pay scale of 1996 to the teaching staff of I.A.S.E., vide letter, dated 16.08.1999, for which, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 01.12.2000, extending the revised U.G.C. pay scale of 1996, sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 29.06.1999 mutatis mutandis, to the teaching staff of I.A.S.E. The petitioner states that in the annexure enclosed to the said G.O. the revised scale of pay was mentioned in the category of Principals at Rs.12000-18300 instead of Rs.16400-22400, as recommended by the second respondent in the proposal, dated 16.08.1999. Noticing the said mistake, when the petitioner approached the respondents, the second respondent addressed letters, dated 08.03.2002 and 22.11.2002, to the first respondent stating that the Principal of I.A.S.E. is entitled to revised U.G.C. scale of pay, 1996 i.e., Rs.16400-22400 and for appropriate steps. In reply, the first respondent issued memo, dated 30.12.2004, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Challenging the said memo, he filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal, which in turn, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 01.12.2000, the revised U.G.C. pay scale to the Principals is fixed at Rs.12000-18300, which was already drawn by the petitioner as Lecturer and that as the petitioner being the Principal of I.A.S.E., is entitled to the scale of pay at Rs.16400-22400. He further contended that the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the matter, dismissed the O.A., only on the ground of delay and laches and as such, the order impugned suffers from legal infirmities. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the duties and responsibilities of the Principals of I.A.S.E. are lesser than the duties and responsibilities of the Principals of P.G.Colleges of Higher Education and Universities and that as per the proposal made by the second respondent, the revised U.G.C. pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 is applicable to the Professors in SCERT/IASE, who were promoted from the cadre of Lecturers drawing U.G.C. play scales of 1986. 6. From a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 01.12.2000, it is evident that the revised scale of pay at Rs.12000-420-18300 is applicable to the Lecturers (Selection grade), Professors(Reader cadre) and Principals. From this, it is clear that there is no difference between the scale of pay of the Lectures (Selection grade) and the Principals, who were promoted from the cadre of Lecturers. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal that the second respondent submitted proposals to the Government on 16.08.1999 for extension of U.G.C. scales, sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.208 dated 29.06.1999, to the Teachers in the Universities and affiliated Degree and P.G. Colleges of Higher Education to the Teachers in College of Teacher Education, I.A.S.E. College of Physical Education and College of School Education Department, mentioning the scale of pay at Rs.16400- 22400 to the Principal, I.A.S.E. and that the duties and responsibilities of the Principals of I.A.S.E are lesser than the duties and responsibilities of Principals of P.G. Colleges of Higher Education and Universities and they are not at all comparable. Whereas in para 9(ii) of the said G.O., it was mentioned that in view of the recommendation made by the second respondent in his proposal dated 16.08.1999, the Government allowed the revised U.G.C.Pay Scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 to the Principals of DIET’s and Professors in SCERT/IASE’s, who were promoted from the cadre of Lecturers drawing U.G.C. pay scales of 1986. There is a contradiction of U.G.C.Pay scale mentioned in para 9(ii) of the said G.O. and the proposal made by the second respondent in regard to the pay scale applicable to the Principals of I.A.S.E., as stated in the counter-affidavit. The Tribunal without considering the said contradiction; and examining the proposal dated 16.08.1999, which is not placed on record and the question as to whether the petitioner, who was promoted as Lecture, was drawn U.G.C. pay scales of 1986 or not, dismissed the O.A. only on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal for disposal, on merits, in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the order impugned. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:25.03.2010. sj