Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Union Of India vs Ch V Krishna on 16 August, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
W.P.No.3638 of 2021
ORDER:(per AVSS,J) Heard Sri N.Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, for petitioners and perused the material available on record.
2. Order dated 13.02.2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.020/ 01159/2015, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. By way of the order impugned in the Writ Petition, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application with a direction to the authorities for payment of arrears and allowances to the applicants on account of the recommendations of Sri R.S.Nataraja Murthi, one man commission increasing the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) with effect from 01.01.2006.
4. According to the applicants/respondents, they are officiating as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Man (GDSMM) against the clear vacancies for last so many years, even prior to 01.01.2006, when Sri R.S.Nataraja Murthi Commission's report with regard to enhancement of pay and allowances of GDS Staff came into effect. The Tribunal by relying on its 2 earlier order in O.A.No.32 of 2013, dated 06.09.2014, allowed the present Original Application.
5. Learned Assistant Solicitor General contends that the applicants in the present Original Application and the applicants in O.A.No.32 of 2013 stand on different pedestal and as such the respondents herein are not entitled for the relief sought in the Original Application. In elaboration it is further contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the applicants in O.A.No.32 of 2013 were appointed against leave vacancies and the applicants in the present Original Application are outsiders and appointed against clear vacancies. A copy of the order dated 06.09.2014, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.32 of 2013 is placed on record along with the present Writ Petition as a material paper. A perusal of the said order shows that when a similar distinction was sought to be made by the authorities, the Tribunal in the aforesaid order turned down the same at para 2 of the said order, holding that there cannot be such discrimination. It is not in dispute that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.32 of 2013 were implemented by the authorities. It is the settled principal of law, that a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari can be issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only in the case where the impugned order/action suffers from jurisdictional error and patent perversity.
3
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said contingencies are absent in the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI ______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date:16.08.2022 vsl 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS WRIT PETITION No.3638 of 2021 16.08.2022 VSL