P a Murthuja Vali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P A MURTHUJA VALI, S/O. P.MD. HASHAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS FOREST BEAT OFFICER, R/O. D.NO. 27124/6/1, NEELITHOTIA VEEDHI, NEAR FIRE STATION, SIDDAPALLI ROAD, ATMAKUR, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶12

T. VENKATESWARULU, S/O. T. BALA GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. WORKING AS FOREST BEAT OFFICER, R/O. D.N0.2-428-232-B1-2, OLD VIJAYAVANI SCHOOL, BALAJI COMPLEX, NANDYALA, NANDAYALA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶13

P. ADHI SESHAIAH, S/O. P. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. WORKING AS BUNGALOW WATCHER, R/O. D.N0.283A, ROLLAPADU, ROLLAPADU POST, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P.

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522238.

¶17

::2::

¶18

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522238.

¶19

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522503.

¶20

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, AND FIELD DIRECTOR PROJECT TIGER CIRCLE (P.T.R), NANDYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT - 518501.

¶21

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PROJECT TIGER CIRCLE, ATMAKUR, NANDYALA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. - 518422.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

::3::

¶24

This Court made the following ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief:

¶26

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not sanctioning the petitioners H.R.A and Annual Grade Increments in the time scale of pay by extending the benefit of further pay revision made from time to time, with arrears interms of the Government Memo No.4903/Sec.V/2014 dated 28-03-2017 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, besides violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently direct to respondents to pay H.R.A and Annual Grade Increments in the time scale of pay by extending the benefit of further pay revision made from time to time, with arrears to the petitioners and pass….”

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶28

The contention of the petitioners is that based on the orders passed by the AP Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6979 of 2013 and Batch, the Government has considered and extended the benefits to the applicants in those O.As and the petitioners herein are also identically situated but the same benefit was not extended to them. It is further contended that as against the orders in the above said O.As, the respondent authorities filed W.P.No.6788 of 2019 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court stating as follows:

¶29

::4::

¶30

“2. Both the learned counsels submit that this matter is squarely covered by the order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A.No.7915 of 2002 dated 26.08.2002, O.A.No.7335 of 2010 dated 27.10.2010, O.A.No.8128 of 2011 and batch dated 29.09.2011 and when on some of these orders the Government carried S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Apex Court the same were dismissed in S.L.P.No.7957 of 2007 and S.L.P.(C) No.10049 of 2007 dated 23.11.2009. In terms of the above said orders passed by the Apex Court in the above said S.L.P. this O.A. was also allowed by the erstwhile Tribunal dated 05.11.2013 which reads as under:

¶31

“3. The subject matter of this O.A. is covered by the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 6979/2013 dated 27.09.2013. Therefore, following the orders passed in O.A. 6979/2013, dated 27.92013, this O.A. is also allowed directing the respondents to grant H.R.A. and annual grade increments etc., to the applicants as was sanctioned to the persons similarly situated in the time scale wherein their pay was fixed and also to pay the arrears. The respondents are further directed to extend the benefit to further pay revision made from time to time. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶32

3. In view of the same, as there are no grounds to interfere in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶33

As the issue was already decided by the Administrative Tribunal

¶34

and Division Bench of this Court had also considered, the petitioners herein who are also standing on the same footing are entitled for the same benefit.

¶35

::5::

¶36