SARAH HITHAVACHANI Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were appointed as Junior Lecturers in sri Padmavathi Degree College on 18. 8. 1975 and 19. 1. 1976, respectively. The college is established and administered by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the Rules framed under the a. P. Education Act, as well as the orders issued by the Government, from time to time.

(2.) THE Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 1072, Education (W) Department, dated 26. 11. 1976, providing for revision of pay Scales, to the affiliated Degree and Post-Graduate Colleges. One of the measures indicated therein was, the merger of the posts of Junior Lecturers, lecturers, Senior Lecturers, etc, into one category of Lecturer, and to fix a pay Scale of Rs. 700-1,600/- for that post. The measure was to come into force, with effect from 1. 4. 1976, subject to the condition that the candidate must have completed five years of service. The period of 5 years was subsequently reduced to 3 years. The petitioners made representation to the authorities of the Higher Education department, as well as the Devasthanam, with a request to extend the benefit under G. O. Ms. No. 1072, dated 26. 11. 1976. The Director of Higher Education issued proceedings, dated 5. 7. 1983 and 8. 9. 1986, directing the Devasthanam to extend the benefit under the G. O. Accordingly, vide Memo dated 19. 2. 1990, the devasthanam redesignated the petitioners herein.

(3.) THE petitioners were not satisfied with the Memo, dated 19. 2. 1990. They made representations to the Devasthanam, claiming that they are entitled to be extended the benefit, with effect from 1. 4. 1976. After several rounds of correspondence, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 26. 12. 2006, designating the petitioners herein as Lecturers, with effect from 1. 4. 1976 notionally, and allowing monetary benefit, with effect from 9. 12. 2006. The grievance of the petitioners is that they ought to have been extended the monitory benefit also from 1. 4. 1976, and accordingly, they seek necessary directions, in this writ petition. They contend that they were appointed prior to 1. 4. 1976, and as such, they are entitled to be extended all the benefits, with effect from 1. 4. 1976.