GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Retired Subordinate Judge. He retired on 14th May, 1966. He originally joined the Judicial service of the erstwhile Hyderabad State as a Munsiff Magistrate on probation with effect from 26th April, 1940. His services were placed on permanent basis on 29th April, 1942. In 1945 he made a request to the High Court for grant of increments taking into account the broken periods of service as Munsiff Magistrate from 26th April, 1940 till he was placed on permanent basis. This request of his was granted by the High Court in its letter Nos. 16573 to 16576 of 1354 Fasli addressed to the Accountant-General, His initial pay, however, had hot been fixed with reference to the period of his legal practice he had to his credit before he was recruited to the judicial service. There is now no dispute that he earlier practiced as a legal practitioner from 1st January, 1937 to 25th April, 1940. By his application, dated 6th November, 1965 the petitioner requested the High Court to fix his initial pay and subsequent increments with reference to the period of legal practice he had to his credit on the date of his appointment as Munsif Magistrate. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its Roc. No. 6736/65 B-2 dated 11th February, 1966 permitted the petitioner to count the period of his legal practice for advance increments in the time scale of pay applicable to him at the time of his appointment as Munsiff Magistrate and recommended to the Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh to refix the initial pay of the petitioner as on 26th April, 1940 with reference to the advance increments he was eligible for the period of legal practice. In its further communications to the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Hyderabad, dated 15th September, 1966, 16th November, 1966, 14th April, 1967 and 21st July, 1967, the High Court reiterated the same recommendation. The further correspondence by the High Court was necessitated by the doubt expressed by the Accountant-General in his letter No. G. 2/JT/233-234 dated 7th June, 1966 that the question of initial fixation of pay of the petitioner in the post of Munsiff Magistrate taking into account the period of legal practice put in at the Bar had been taken up after a lapse of 25 years and therefore Government orders were required for fixation of pay from time to time and payment of arrears. Pursuant to this recommendation made by the High Court the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed G.O.Ms. No. 2096, dat3d 12th December, 1967 as amended by Memo. No. 3729/HCA/67-2 dated 23rd January, 1968 stating. " The Government accept the recommendation of the High Court and they accordingly direct that Sri Ghouse Mohiuddin, Munsiff Magistrate in relaxation of the orders issued in Finance Department Circular No. 797/GAD/64/JUD 53 dated 12th July, 1955 be given weightage of increments in lieu of 3 years 3 months 25 days practice at the Bar in the I.G. Scale of Rs. 295-550 subject to the condition that no arrears need be paid on account of this fixation."

(2.) The Accountant-General by hisletten No. GAD. II/JT/I, dated 9th January, 1968 sought to clarification of the aforesaid Government's order by pointing out- "The Officer has been in the revised scale of Munsif Magistrate of Rs. 375/800 reached the maximum of Rs. 800 as sub-Judge. He was getting Rs. 810 on the date of his retirement on 14th May, 1966 F. N. As no payment of arrears are intended and as the emoluments for pension for three years prior to retiroment do not also undergo any revision the exact intention of the Government issuing the orders dated 12th December, 1967 is not clear. This may please be clarified."

(3.) Thereupon the Government gave its final decision on the matter in its letter No. 3729. CTS.A/67 Home (Cts. A) dated 18th April, 1968 addressed to the Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh wherein it was stated: "I am directed to state that the orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 2096, Home (CtsA) Dept. dated 12th December, 1967 may be ignored in the circumstance stated by the Accountant-General in the reference cited." The consequence of this is that the petitioner did not receive any arrears of pay based on the increments he was entitled to with reference to his period of practice he had put in before his recruitment into Judicial service. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition for the issuance of " writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of pay to the petitioner consequent upon the application of Article 104 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations to his case and refixation of pay in pursuance thereof."