However, on 16 2 1998, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned single Judge observed that in view of the interim order of 22 12 1988, the writ petition had become infructuous and numberfurther orders were required.
However, these two persons were drawing a pay which was more than the pay drawn by the respondent in view of their longer actual service as District Munsiffs starting from November, 1966.
By an interim order, the learned single Judge of the High Court gave a direction to revise the pay of the respondent so as to make it at par with the pay actually drawn by the said two persons.
Thereafter, the respondent did number seek implementation of the interim order.
The respondent was directly recruited as a District Munsif on 10 10 1973.
1 11 1973.
In 1988, the respondent while working as a District Judge filed the present writ petition seeking the same pay as was being drawn by these two persons w.e.f.
However, in the seniority list of District Munsiffs, the respondent was shown as senior to those two persons presumably because those two persons were adjusted against the quota of promotees from a date later than 1973.
The same view was taken by the High Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellants.
When he was so recruited, one M. Ramachandra Reddy and C. Rami Reddy were already promoted as District Munsiffs w.e.f.
13 11 1966.
