HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

W.A.Nos. 1016 and 1374 of 2004, 1176 and 1287 of 2005

DATE: .09.2013

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)

The Writ Appeal No.1016 of 2004 is filed against the order dated 23.12.2003 passed in W.P.No.2142 of 1993 wherein the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents therein to treat the period of service rendered by the petitioners 2 to 266 as Junior Lecturers in their respective composite degree colleges for the purpose of computation of service of 8/16 years for granting senior scale/selection grade scale to them with all consequential benefits.

2. As the issue involved in W.P.No.2142 of 1993 is identical with the issue in W.P.Nos. 16594 of 1992, 4583 of 1993, 4944 of 2004, the same have been allowed. Against the same, the present Writ Appeal Nos.1374 of 2004 and 1176 & 1287 of 2005 have been filed. Since, the issue involved in all the Writ Appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of Common Judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be herein after referred to as arrayed in the Writ Petition No.2142 of 1993.

4. The facts of the case, which are necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeals, are as under:

First petitioner is an Association and petitioners 2 to 266 are individual members of the Association working in different affiliated Colleges under private management in the State. They are all working as lecturers in the composite degree Colleges as on the date of filing of the writ petition. They are aggrieved by the action of the Government in not extending the benefits that were given to the other Lecturers in the matter of application of the policy as adumbrated in G.O.Ms.No.520, Education, dated

15-12-1988. For the purpose of computing the prescribed period of 8/16 years service, the service rendered as Assistant Lecturer/Demonstrator/Tutor in the Government/private Degree College prior to 01.04.1976 was directed to be reckoned for granting the senior/selection grade scale of Rs.3000-5000 or Rs.3700-5700 for Lecturers. Whereas, the service rendered as a Junior Lecturer in the composite Degree College was not allowed to be counted for the purpose of reckoning the period of 8/16 years as a Lecturer for the purpose of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).

5. It is stated that originally there used to be several classes of posts among the Teachers in the affiliated Degree Colleges. The affiliated degree colleges with Intermediate education is known as composite degree colleges, whereas where teaching is provided only for Intermediate in a college is called mere Junior College. Such Junior Colleges may be independent with reference to the management or they may be annexed to the Schools, which provide secondary school education. Such of those Colleges are known as Junior Colleges only. A specific distinction was maintained from the beginning between Junior Colleges not attached to the Degree Colleges and the Junior Colleges attached to the Degree Colleges. In the instant case, the petitioners are working in composite degree colleges i.e., degree colleges with Intermediate education. In a composite degree college, there used to be a Tutor, Demonstrator, Junior Lecturer, Assistant Lecturer and Lecturer. While so, these posts were decided to be unified by the policy of the Central Government and implemented by the State Government in concurrence with the Universities to which such Colleges were affiliated and with effect from 01.04.1976 in composite degree colleges, all posts of Junior Lecturers, Assistant Lecturers, Demonstrators and Tutors were upgraded and were henceforth treated as Lecturers with a common scale. By virtue of the policy of the Government and decisions implemented from time to time, persons holding any post in the degree college as a Tutor was thereafter called as a Lecturer.

6. Initially, all the petitioners were appointed as Junior Lecturers in composite degree colleges under private managements. They are all qualified to be appointed as Junior Lecturers with requisite qualification of Post Graduate Degree with first or second division. They were all given advantages of possessing Ph.D or M.Phil qualifications. Persons working as Junior Lecturers with such qualifications were to teach the students of Intermediate and other classes in Degree courses in the degree colleges in which they were working.

7. The Junior Lecturers were initially appointed in the time scale of Rs.200-500, which was subsequently revised as Rs.430-800 with effect from 1-1-1974 by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1376, dated 01.12.1975. All the petitioners were working as Lecturers with effect from 01.04.1976. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.281, Education, dated 28.03.1980, all existing posts of Junior Lecturers in degree colleges were upgraded as Lecturers in the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect from 01.04.1976, the date of implementation of revised pay scales of 1976, as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.1072, Education, dated 26-11-1976, provided all of them possesses qualifications prescribed for the post by the Universities concerned prior to 01.04.1976, and also subject to the conditions prescribed therein.

8. Through G.O.Ms.No.1920, Education, dated 25.10.1969, the State Government ordered introduction of two year Intermediate course from the academic year 1969-70 in the existing degree colleges in place of one year Pre-University Course (PUC), which was in existence by then. By virtue of the above G.O, the post of Junior Lecturer was created and the Junior Colleges were allowed to be run by the private managements as well as the Government. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took certain decisions concerning staff pattern and pay scales of staff in the Junior Colleges. The staff pattern in a junior college was directed to be in conformity with staff pattern as obtained in degree colleges. The post of Junior Lecturer was directed to be constituted as a separate category. The scale applied to the Junior

Lecturers in the higher secondary and multi-purpose schools and the Junior Lecturers in the degree colleges was one and the same. The University Grants Commission recommended to the Government of India that the pay scale of College/University Teachers should be revised for every five years. This recommendation was accepted by Government of India and desired the State Governments to revive the pay scales of University/College Teachers. The UGC also communicated separate pay scales for teachers in the under-graduate colleges, post-graduate colleges and the Universities. The UGC, in fact, appointed a sub-committee, which in turn recommended the revision of pay scales of all the teachers in higher education. These recommendations of Prof. S.N. Sen were accepted in toto by the UGC and also by the Government of India in 1974. The UGC has abolished the distinction in the categories of posts in under-graduate and postgraduate colleges on one hand and the Universities on the other, as a result of which, the distinction between Lecturer (junior scale) and the Lecturer (senior scale) in the affiliated Colleges on one hand and the Lecturers in the University on the other hand has been abolished. All of them were designated as Lecturers to have the pay scale of Rs.700- 1600. The posts of Tutors and Demonstrators were abolished in the year 1975. Further, the State Government accepted the recommendations made by the 3-man committee with a provision for modification, keeping in view the conditions obtained in the State. On acceptance of these recommendations, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26.11.1976 and merged all the different posts into one category i.e., Lecturers in the revised pay scale of Rs.700- 1600 with effect from 01.04.1976. However, the above said G.O.Ms.No.1072 was not implemented in respect of the Junior Lecturers working in the degree colleges under private managements. Under those circumstances, batch of Writ Petitions were filed before this Court, which were allowed holding that the action of the Government was discriminatory and offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the State Government has failed to implement

the Governmental Orders in respect of Junior Lecturers working in the degree colleges under private managements.

9. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.281, Education, dated 28.03.1980 directing that all the existing posts of Junior Lecturers in the degree colleges be upgraded as Lecturers in the revised pay scales of Rs.700-1600 with effect from 01.04.1976, subject to condition that they possess qualifications for the posts prescribed by the Universities concerned prior to 01.04.1976 and also subject to the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1072, Education dated 26.11.1976. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.281, dated 28.03.1980, the posts held by the petitioners and others in the affiliated composite degree colleges under private managements were upgraded as the post of Lecturer and they were also permitted to hold such upgraded post and all of them have been working as such. While so, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.520, Education, dated 15.12.1988, the Government extended the revised U.G.C pay scales of 1986 to the teachers working in the affiliated degree and post-graduate colleges. As a matter of policy, the State Government decided to extend the revised UGC scales of pay to the Lecturers, Librarians and Physical Education personnel in the Universities and Colleges in the State. The said G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 15.12.1988 was made applicable to all the Lecturers in the Universities and affiliated degree and post-graduate colleges, whether private or Government, who were drawing pay in the revised pay scales of 1976. Further, these orders were also made applicable to the Lecturers teaching both degree and intermediate courses in the composite degree colleges, while excluding the application to the Lectures, who are teaching exclusively to intermediate classes. All the petitioners are Lecturers working in the composite colleges and none of them are teaching exclusively intermediate classes. The revised pay scales are made applicable, subject to fulfilment of criterion laid down in the conditions of service appended to the said order and those conditions are regarding the recruitment, qualifications, career advancement,

continuation of education, performance appraisal etc. Clear guidelines were available for implementation of G.O.Ms.No.520, Education, dated 15.12.1988 and also the guidelines issued by the UGC vide their letter dated 29.01.1990. The State Government also accepted and implemented the scheme of career advancement for the Lecturers in Government and aided colleges, subject to fulfilment of additional guidelines provided in G.O.Ms.No.169, Education, dated 07.07.1990. For the purpose of computing the period of 8/16 years of service rendered as Assistant Lecturer in any Government College before 01.04.1976 was directed to be reckoned for granting the senior/selection grade scale for Lecturers. This is by virtue of the provisions contained in para-3 of G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07.07.1990. At the same time, the Government directed that the service rendered as a Junior Lecturer in any College including the composite degree colleges shall not be counted for the purpose of reckoning the period of 8/16 years of service as a Lecturer for granting senior/selection grade scale. Thus, by virtue of the provisions contained in para-5 of G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07.07.1990, the petitioners who worked as Junior Lecturers prior to 01.04.1976 were not allowed to reckon the service rendered by them in the cadre of Junior Lecturer for the purpose of 8/16 years senior/selection grade scales. Thus, there has been discrimination between persons, who rendered the service as Assistant Lecturer and the persons, who rendered the service as Junior Lecturer in the same composite degree college under private management. Further, the qualifications for recruitment at that point of time, i.e., before 01.04.1976, after introduction of intermediate course for both Assistant Lecturer and Junior Lecturer were the same. The persons, who have come up for selection and found inferior, were appointed as Tutors and Demonstrators and the persons with superior quality in selection were appointed as Assistant Lecturers/Junior Lecturers. While unifying the different posts in all affiliated colleges, which are otherwise known as composite degree colleges, the service rendered even by the Tutor or Demonstrator was allowed to be taken

into account for the purpose of CAS. On a clarification being sought by the Director of Higher Education, the Government issued Memo No.832/W2/79-1, dated 24.04.1979, stating that it is quite clear that one year service of Tutor/Demonstrator will be treated as half year of service as Junior Lecturer or Assistant Lecturer and the said ratio was directed to be followed in future. In other words, the Demonstrator and Tutor were treated as inferior to that of Assistant Lecturer and Junior Lecturer. Therefore, there cannot be any distinction between the post of Assistant Lecturer and Junior Lecturer for the purpose of reckoning the service rendered by the persons, who held either the post of Junior Lecturer or the Assistant Lecturer. If the service rendered by a person as Assistant Lecturer is to be reckoned for the purpose of length of service he has put in the category of Lecturer on the upgradation of the post of Assistant Lecturer, the same analogy and ratio ought to have been allowed in case of Junior Lecturer also. Further, the same analogy was allowed in case of service rendered by a Tutor in the category of Junior Lecturer. The failure to provide same treatment to the persons holding the post of Junior Lecturer is absolutely discriminatory, arbitrary and highhandedness on the part of the Government. There has been no justification or reason or rationale for the said decision of the Government. There was no justification in refusing to reckon the service rendered by the petitioners in the category of Junior Lecturer before the same was upgraded as a Lecturer for the purpose of computation of service of 8/16 years senior/selection grade scales.

10. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no dispute about the fact as to upgradation of the posts of Tutor, Demonstrator, Assistant Lecturer and Junior Lecturer as Lecturer with effect from 01.04.1976 and also that the posts of Demonstrator and Tutor are inferior to that of Junior Lecturer. The University Grants Commission has so far announced revision of pay scales to the college teachers four times. The first revision was announced in 1961, the

second in 1966, the third in 1976 and the fourth in 1986. It is stated that the Junior Lecturers were not covered by UGC scales in the above four pay revisions. They were upgraded while introducing the third pay revision vide G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26.11.1976 i.e., Tutor/Demonstrator, Assistant Lecturer and Junior Lecturer were made into one category viz., Lecturer with effect from 01.04.1976 in the scale of Rs.700-1600. The Tutors/Demonstrators, who had put in 5 years of service and Junior Lecturers working in the degree college and who had put in 3 years of service were extended the sale of Rs.700-1600 after upgrading the posts as Lecturers as per G.O.Ms.No.719, dated 03.07.1978. But the UGC scales of pay as such were never extended to the Junior Lecturers as they did not come under the purview of Universities or UGC. It is stated that the posts of Junior Lecturers were basically existing in Junior Colleges from 1969 onwards and hence, these posts are not under the purview of Universities and the UGC. These posts are under the purview of Board of Intermediate Education. As such, Junior Lecturers were not given the UGC scales, while so in the composite degree colleges, the Junior Lecturers were appointed to handle the intermediate classes allowing them the Junior Lecturer scale of Rs.430-800. Such of the Junior Lecturers, who have not completed 3 years of service as on 01.04.1976 were given the scale of Rs.530-1050 from 01.04.1976 onwards till they completed 3 years of service. While implementing the third revised UGC scales of pay, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1072, Education, dated 26.11.1976 making different categories of Lecturers in degree colleges viz., Tutors/Demonstrators, Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers into one category as Lecturers with effect from 01.04.1976 and extended them the scale of Rs.700-1600. Even the Tutors and Demonstrators, who had put in 5 years of service, were given the above scale. Subsequently, the Junior Lecturers working in the composite private degree colleges on completion of 3 years of service were given the UGC scale of Rs.700-1600 and designated as Lecturer as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.719, Education, dated 23.07.1978. Thus,

the Junior Lecturers, as such, were not given UGC scales prior to 01.04.1976. It is also stated that under G.O.Ms.No.520, Education, dated 15.12.1988 the revised UGC scales of 1986 were extended to the College Teachers with effect from 01.01.1986 and CAS was also introduced. Every Lecturer was placed in the senior scale of Rs.3000- 5000, if he/she had completed 8 years of service and in the selection grade scale of Rs.3700-5700, on completion of 16 years of service. The scheme was also implemented to all the Lecturers in Government and Private Degree Colleges as per G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07.07.1990. It is a fact that for computing the prescribed period of 8/16 years of service, the service rendered as Assistant Lecturer in any Government Degree College before 01.04.1976 was reckoned for granting senior/selection grade scale. It was also made clear that the experience of a person before appointment as a Lecturer in the Degree College(Government/private aided) was counted as a qualified service for placing in senior/selection grade scale, but not for seniority in the Government/Private College Services. As per paragraph-5 of G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07.07.1990, the service rendered as a Junior Lecturer in any Government/private degree/junior/composite/post graduate colleges was not counted for the purpose of computing the period of 8/16 years service for granting senior/selection grade.

11. It is also stated in the counter that since the Assistant Lecturers in the Government Degree Colleges and Lecturers in Private Degree Colleges existing from the inception of the Colleges, which were within the purview of UGC and UGC scales were extended to these posts and not to the category of Junior Lecturers. For the first time, this category came into being in 1969 after introduction of two years intermediate course. Therefore, the category of Junior Lecturer cannot be equated with that of the Lecturer and Assistant Lecturer in private colleges till they brought to the UGC scales of Rs.700-1600. Hence, Government has rightly decided to count the service of Assistant Lecturers rendered prior to 01.04.1976 for the purpose of

reckoning 8/16 years service for CAS. The service rendered by the Lecturer as Junior Lecturer prior to 01.04.1976 cannot be counted as a qualifying service for reckoning 8/16 years service for CAS. As such, no discrimination was shown and the petitioners have not made out any case.

12. After considering the above rival issues, the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition.

13. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education as well as Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners.

14. The only question that falls for consideration in these Writ Appeals is whether the Lecturers working in the affiliated composite degree Colleges are entitled to reckon their service rendered as Junior Lecturer till 31.03.1976, for the purpose of computing 8/16 years of service for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS).

15. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the appellants submits that since the pay of respondents-writ petitioners is not analogous to that of University Grants Commission scales, the service rendered by them prior to 01.04.1976 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of reckoning 8/16 years service for Career Advancement Scheme. He also contends that there was no such post of Junior Lecturers prior to 1968 and also there was no scheme prior to 01.04.1976 to bring them on par with Assistant Lecturers, Tutors and Demonstrators. As such, the period was not counted for extending the benefit of CAS to them. He also contends that the services of Tutors and Demonstrators, who worked in composite degree colleges were never taken into consideration prior to 01.04.1976 for the purpose of CAS, as they are not entitled for the same. He also contends that vide G.O.Ms.No.195, dated 18.06.1992 Government has counted the service rendered as Junior Lecturer in the scale of 530-1050 for the purpose of CAS. He also contends that the Government, after taking into consideration various representations implemented CAS duly counting the service rendered by Junior

Lecturers working in composite degree colleges who are drawing scale of 530-1050 from 01.04.1976 and after completion of three years they were paid the scale 700-1600 from 530-1050. Hence, additional financial benefits were given to the Junior Lecturers and for unification of posts from 01.04.1976, their services prior to 01.04.1976 were not counted for 8/16 years service for the purpose of CAS. It is also contended that the Junior Lecturer cannot be treated on par with Assistant Lecturers. He also relied in STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS v. CHARANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS [1] on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

<span id="page-10-0"></span>16. On the other hand, Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has considered various governmental orders issued by the Government and also relying on the Judgments of the Supreme Court, granted relief to the respondents-writ petitioners, as such, the same cannot be disturbed in the appeal. He also contends that the learned Single Judge has considered the matter in depth and held that denial of scheme introduced under G.O.Ms.No.520, Education, dated 15.12.1988 for the petitioners who worked on par with Tutors, Demonstrators and Assistant Lecturers prior to 01.04.1976 is most irrational and the learned Single Judge held that the same is discriminatory, which cannot be faulted.

17. In the present case, it has to be seen that the posts of Junior Lecturer, Assistant Lecturer, Demonstrator and Tutor in the degree colleges were all merged into one category and upgraded to that of Lecturer with a common designation and scale of Rs.700-1600 with effect from 01.04.1976 as per G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26.11.1976. But, the UGC scales were extended to the Tutors and Demonstrators, who were upgraded as Lecturers with effect from 01.04.1976, provided that they had put in 5 years of service as on that date. Further, Junior Lecturers working in the composite degree colleges were put on the UGC scale of Rs.700-1600, provided they had put in 3 years of service, as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.719, dated 03.07.1978. The

Tutors, Demonstrators and Assistant lecturers, who worked in the composite degree colleges, were all extended the benefit of CAS, reckoning the service rendered by them in their respective cadres before 01.04.1976, whereas the same is denied to the Junior Lecturerswrit petitioners.

18. The whole contention of the Appellants is that the Junior Lecturers, who worked in the composite degree colleges before 01.04.1976 were not put on the UGC scales like that of the Tutors, Demonstrators and Assistant Lecturers, as such, these Junior Lecturers are not entitled to reckon the service rendered by them prior to 01.04.1976. Thus, the only differentiation made by the Government as to the Demonstrators, Tutors and Assistant Lecturers on the one hand and the Junior Lecturers attached to the composite degree colleges on the other, was that the former category personnel were paid by UGC, whereas the latter category were paid from the State funds.

19. As discussed by the learned Single Judge by relying on various Governmental Orders, the Tutors and Demonstrators were treated inferior to that of Assistant Lecturers and Junior Lecturers. It is also a fact that whenever a selection took place, the more meritorious candidates were appointed as Junior Lecturers and/or Assistant Lecturers and the less meritorious were appointed as Tutors and Demonstrators. Even in the criteria laid down for the purpose of upgradation in G.O.Ms.no.1072, dated 26.11.1976, the Junior Lecturers were supposed to have 3 years of service before 01.04.1976, whereas the Demonstrators were supposed to have put in 5 years for the purpose of upgradation with effect from 01.04.1976 in the UGC scale of Rs.700-1600. Therefore, from the above, it is found that the denial of CAS to the respondents-writ petitioners on par with the Tutors, Demonstrators and Assistant Lecturers of the Government Colleges is nothing but an unsustainable discrimination and there was no object sought to be achieved except to deny petitioners of their legitimate right for getting the benefits under CAS. The very object of introducing CAS is to be obliterate the stagnation among the Lecturers and to give them

incentive, as all of them are treated as one class with effect from 01.04.1976 and most of them put in more number of years than that of the Tutors, Demonstrators and Assistant Lecturers and they also equally suffer the stagnation, the denial of CAS benefits to the petitioners is no way connected with the object sought to be achieved under the very scheme.

20. G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 15.12.1988 itself contemplates that the CAS benefits are applicable not only to all the Government and aided Colleges but also to the Teachers, who are drawing pay in the State Pay Scales of 1978/1986. It was also made clear that this order is also applicable to such teachers, who are teaching both Intermediate and Degree classes in composite degree colleges. A clarification was issued that it is not applicable to the teachers, who are teaching exclusively intermediate classes and as such, the clarification issued thereafter in G.O.Ms.No.169, dated 07.07.1990, which is challenged in the writ petition, is nothing but discriminating the petitioners against others and is not in consonance with the object with which the scheme is framed.

21. Further, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that CAS is extended only to those who were already under UGC scales and not to the persons, who are in the State scale, may not be correct. In view of the paragraphs 4 and 9 in G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 15.12.1988, it is clear that the teachers, who are drawing pay in the State pay scales 1978/1986 are also entitled for the said benefit.

22. As per G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 22.01.1999, the Government itself conceded for extending the benefit of reckoning the service rendered as a Junior Lecturer in the composite colleges of the Government. The Junior Lecturers in the Government composite colleges were also not under U.G.C scales prior to 01.04.1976 or thereafter. It is also clear that the cadre of Junior Lecturer was a substitute to Assistant Lecturer in the A.P. Educational Subordinate Services as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.423, Education (M1)

Department, dated 19.04.1979. The previous service of another feeder cadre i.e., Assistant Lecturer is counted for the CAS vide G.O.Ms.No.169, Education, dated 07.07.1990, while that of the Junior Lecturer was not included for reckoning the CAS benefits. When the services rendered in one of the feeder posts i.e., Assistant Lecturer prior to 01.04.1976 was taken into consideration for the purpose of extending the benefits of CAS, the non-extension of the same benefit to the Junior Lecturer, which was also another feeder cadre, is nothing but arbitrary and illegal. In the said G.O., the services rendered by Junior Lecturers who were upgraded after completion of 3 years after 01.04.1976, was also considered for the purpose of CAS. No difference can be made out, which distinguish the Junior Lecturers when grouped together with that of Assistant Lecturers, Demonstrators and Tutors and such differential attributes must bear a just and reasonable rationale to the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the service of the petitioners rendered as a Junior Lecturer prior to 01.04.1976 cannot be reckoned for the purpose of extending the CAS benefit is nothing but arbitrary and hence, the same cannot be accepted.

23. It is also to be noted that the respondents-writ petitioners were upgraded on par with Lecturers from 01.04.1976. The scheme of CAS sought to be introduced with effect from 01.01.1986. At that stage, for the purpose of extending the benefits of CAS, the petitioners are sought to be discriminated on the basis that they were all Junior Lecturers before 01.04.1976 and were not put on UGC scales.

24. It is not the stand of the appellants that these Lecturers were not holding the requisite educational qualification nor they have not satisfied the conditions as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1072, dated 26.11.1976. Therefore, the respondents-writ petitioners cannot be discriminated for the purpose of extending CAS benefits, especially Junior Lecturer being one of the feeder posts for upgradation along with Assistant Lecturers, Tutors and Demonstrators. When once the services rendered in the cadres of Assistant Lecturer, Demonstrator

and Tutor before 01.04.1976 was taken into consideration for the purpose of extending the CAS, the denial of the same to the respondents-writ petitioners who worked as Junior Lecturers prior to 01.04.1976 on the ground that they were not drawing UGC scale is arbitrary and irrational in view of paragraph-4 of G.O.Ms.No.520, dated 15.12.1988.

25. In view of the above discussion, we feel that the respondents-writ petitioners are entitled for counting of their service rendered by them prior to 01.04.1976 for the purpose of granting CAS benefits. We have also gone through the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by relying several Governmental Orders and by relying on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in AIR INDIA v. NERGESH MEERZA [2] and STATE OF KERALA v. N.M.THOMAS [3] also came to the same conclusion.

<span id="page-14-0"></span>Therefore, we do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed.

26. The Writ Appeals are dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.

_______________________

<span id="page-14-1"></span>_______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

Date: .09.2013 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

W.A.Nos. 1016 and 1374 of 2004, 1176 and 1287 of 2005

kvs

• <span id="page-16-0"></span>[1] (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 321
• <span id="page-16-1"></span>[2] 1981(4) SCC 335
• <span id="page-16-2"></span>[3] (1976) 2 SCC 310