Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. The petitioners, who are 30 in number, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not merging the special pay in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 216, Finance and Planning (FW.TA) Department, dated 27-5-1993 to the post of Section Officer with effect from 1-4-1993, is arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable.
2. The 1st petitioner, who is working as Section Officer (Librarian) in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on behalf of himself and other petitioners, filed on oath an affidavit in support of the writ petition stating that the non-merging of the special pay in terms of G.O. Ms. No.216, dated 27-5-1993 and denying the benefit thereof to the petitioners, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard Sri Samineni Kishore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Home for 2nd respondent, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for 3rd respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court.
4. We have perused G.O. Ms. No.216, dated 27-5-1993 and other material papers filed by the petitioners as also the counters filed by the respondents.
5. G.O. Ms. No.216, dated 27-5-1993, was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, enhancing the special pay to various categories of posts. The special pay was Rs.50/- per month to the post of Translators as per the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.74, Finance and Planning (FW-TA) Department, dated 25-3-1987. By G.O. Ms. No.216, dated 27-5-1993, the special pay was enhanced from Rs.50/- to Rs.75/- per month.
6. It may be noted that the 1st petitioner along with other Deputy Section Officers earlier filed WP No.18452 of 1987 seeking directions to the respondents therein to grant them special pay with effect from1-7-1986 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.74, Finance and Planning (FW-TA) Department, dated 25-3-1987, contending that petitioners 11, 21, 34, 35, 36 and 42, were working as full time Translators and were attending to the work of translation in addition to the regular duties as per Office Order No.1/Trans./87 dated 5-2-1987, wherein it is directed that the Deputy Section Officers working in various sections are required to attend to translation work, minimum 10 pages every month.
7. Keeping in view of the above Office Order, the High Court on the administrative side, supported the claim of the petitioners in the said writ petition, which was allowed by order dated 28-2-1992. Aggrieved thereby, the Government of Andhra Pradesh carried in appeal to the Division Bench in WA No.778 of 1992, which was dismissed by order dated 1-1-1992. Challenging the said order, the Government of Andhra Pradesh moved the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.17513-14 of 1993, to which the petitioners herein are also parties. The Supreme Court, by order dated 2-9-1996, allowed the SLP negativing the claim of petitioners.
8. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, the learned Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of State placed before us the order dated 2-9-1996, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.17513-14 of 1993, and it is useful to extract the following:
The special pay granted to Translators was because of the very nature of work. The work which the Translators were and are required to do is essentially of translation and not merely incidental to some other work to qualify for promotion to the next higher post. Translating 10 pages per month is merely incidental to the regular work which the Deputy Section Officers were required to put it. For such incidental a work and that too to enable them to qualifyfor promotion, we fail to see how it can be said that they stand at par with Translators to be entitled to special pay. The High Court has taken the view that if translation work is part of their duty irrespective of the fact as to whether such employee is to devote only a part of time and not the entire time for the translation work, he becomes entitled to special pay. We find it difficult to subscribe to this line of reasoning. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be allowed to stand.In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The writ petition in the High Court will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
9. From the above, it can be seen that special pay was granted to Translators because of the very nature of the work, and the work which they are required to do is essentially of translation and not merely incidental to some other work to qualify for promotion to the next higher post. That for such incidental work, and that too to enable them to qualify for promotion, the petitioners cannot be allowed to say that they stand at par with the Translators, and as such, are entitled to be granted special pay. The Supreme Court also did not accept the stand taken by the High Court on the administrative side, and accordingly allowed the SLP filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and dismissed the writ petition, filed in the High Court by the petitioners.
10. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners are claiming similar relief, which war claimed by them in WP No. 18452 of 1987. Having regard to the fact that the relief claimed by the petitioners in the above mentioned was rejected by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)Nos.17513-14 of 1993, by order dated 2-9-1996 after examination of the matter in detail, we are of the opinion, that the petitioners cannot be allowed tocountenance once again by this writ petition that they are entitled to special pay, and as such, should be given the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.216, dated 27-5-1993, by which the special pay was enhanced.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.