On the revision of the pay scales in 1974, as a result of merger of DA, the pay of the appellant was fixed at Rs.
That was the pay scale of the appellant at the time of transfer of the Transport Department of the TTD to the APSRTC on August 10, 1975.
200 400.
With effect from August 10, 1975, the Transport Department of the TTD was transferred to the APSRTC and the services of the appellant were also transferred to the said Corporation.
As regards the judgment of Chinnappa Reddy, J. dated February 28, 1978 in Writ Petition No.
The learned Judge held that in judgment dated December 23, 1974 in Writ Petition No.
3322 of 1986, the appellant had assailed the action of the APSRTC posting him as Mechanical Foreman and had prayed for issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction cancelling the order of posting given to the appellant and directing the authorities of the APSRTC to give him a posting above the cadre of Mechanical Foreman and that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench did number interfere with the said order of the learned single Judge and merely permitted the appellant to make a representation to The Board of the TTD and another representation to the APSRTC subsequent to the disposal of representation by the Board of TTD.
The said Writ Petition was opposed by the Executive Officer, TTD who claimed that the post of Workshop Superintendent is equivalent to the post of Superintendent on the ministerial side in the TTD and the appellant was entitled to the same scale of pay.
Against the said order of the Board the appellant filed another Writ Petition No.
The said Writ Petition as well as Writ Appeal No.
400 800.
by judgment dated November 12, 1990.
The learned Judges allowed the said appeals and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge.
Therefore, he may make a representation to the Corporation after orders are passed by the TTD.
In the end if Subrahmanya Reddy is aggrieved, we reserve for him to agitate in this Court all questions which are raised in the Writ Petition.
Keeping in view the aforesaid order passed in Writ Petition No.
200 400.
The learned judge directed the TTD to companysider the fixation of the scale of pay of the appellant above that of the Assistant Mechanical Foreman and below that of the Transport Engineer, with effect from May 1, 1970.
The appellant had submitted an appeal against the said order before the Board of the TTD which was dismissed as number maintainable.
350 750 with effect from May 1, 1970.
Initially the pay of the appellant was fixed in the scale of Rs.
5816 of 1972, is that the appellant should be treated as a technical man and number as a ministerial staff.
The learned Judge directed the TTD to companysider the fixation of the scale of pay of the appellant above that of the Assistant Mechanical Foreman and below that of the Transport Engineer with effect from May 1, 1970.
350 25 600 30 750.
578 of 1986 filed by the appellant.
The said representation was rejected by the Executive Officer by order dated July 14, 1977.
Thereafter, the appellant was posted on the post of Mechanical Foreman.
Against the said decision of the learned single Judge, TTD as well as APSRTC filed letters patent appeals and the said appeals Writ Appeal Nos.
K.Ramaswamy, J. was, therefore, right in proceeding on the basis that the necessary inference that can be drawn from the judgment of Chennakesav Reddy, J. in Writ Petition No.
299 of 1978 with the following observations In the writ petition No.
It was held that in Writ Petition No.
The said Writ Petition was decided by a learned single Judge of the High Court Chennakesav Reddy, J. by judgment dated December 23, 1974.
The representation submitted by the appellant before the Board of TTD was rejected by order dated November 25, 1985.
600 1100.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.
777 of 1981 filed in the High Court.
The appellant joined the Transport Department of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams hereinafter referred to as TTD on the post of Workshop Superintendent on May 4, 1968.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.
3322 of 1976 and the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
777 of 1981, the learned Judges disposed of Writ Appeal No.
350 750 and the appellant was placed in the said scale of pay with effect from May 1, 1970.
The said appointment of the appellant was subsequently regularised and he was companyfirmed on the said post with affect from June 11, 1970.
The matter was thereafter companysidered by the Board of TTD and by its resolution dated June 29,1975 the Board accepted the recommendations of the General Manager that the duties performed by the appellant were similar to the duties of the Transport Manager and on that basis fixed the pay for the post of Workshop Superintendent in the scale of Rs.
The said Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge Chinnappa Reddy, J. as he then was by order dated February 28, 1978 on the view that under Clause 13 of the agreement between the TTD and the APSRTC, only the pay of the appellant had been protected and number his status and that the question of equation of posts companyld number be enquired into in the Writ Petition in the absence of adequate material.
299 of 1978 were heard together and disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court Raghuvir and Rama Rao, JJ.
777 of 1981 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction that the appellant was to submit representation within two weeks and the TTD dispose of the said representation in two months thereafter.
by order dated September 1985.
500 900 or at least the scale of pay of Transport Engineer in TTD which was Rs.
299 of 1978 against the said decision of learned single Judge.
The appellant had challenged the said order of the Board of TTD in Writ Petition No.
586 of 1972 which had become binding on both the parties, a finding has been recorded that the appellant was discharging the duties which were technical in nature and treating the appellant as ministerial staff was arbitrary and fanciful and that in view of the said finding the appellant should be treated as a technical man and number as a ministerial staff in APSRTC.
The said Writ Petition was allowed by a learned single Judge K.Ramaswamy, J. as he then was by judgment dated July 5, 1989.
578 of 1986 before the High Court.
777 of 1981, we have ordered Subrahmanya Reddy to obtain from TTD authorities as indicated above.
In 1969, it was revised to Rs.
180 350.
No revision was made in the pay scales of the appellant and he companytinued to be in the scale of Rs.
5816 of 1972 in the High Court wherein he claimed that he should be given the scale of pay of Assistant Works Manager in APSRTC, which was, Rs.
On September 2, 1972, the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad directed the TTD to revise the scales of pay of its employees in the Transport Department and to bring them at par with the scales of pay of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as APSRTC and the said revision was to be made effective from May 1, 1970.
600 1100.
He was appointed on the said post temporarily by a memo dated April 27, 1968.
The writ appeal is accordingly ordered.
1669 and 1714 of 989 arising out of Writ Petition No.
The Corporation is directed to companysider and pass appropriate orders two months after the receipt of representation by Subrahmanya Reddy.
At the time of hearing the companynsel for the TTD represented before the Court that the TTD would companysider the appeal and that the appellant may make representation afresh and in view of this companycession the learned Judges felt that it was unnecessary to companysider the maintainability of appeal or the validity of the order impugned in the Writ Petition No.
1669 and 1714 of 1989 respectively were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court Ramanujulu Naidu and Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, JJ.
The appellant filed a Writ Appeal No.
700 1200 and that the appellant should be fitted into that scale of pay as a technical man.
The appellant was therefore placed in the scale of Rs.
C. Agrawal,, J. Special Leave granted.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
These appeals by Special Leave are directed against the judgment dated November 12, 1990 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeals Nos.
