Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) The respondents herein were in the judicial service of the State of Andhra Pradesh. They were originally appointed as Munsif Magistrates in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and after the formation of State of Andhra Pradesh their services were integrated with those of their counterparts from different parts forming the State of Andhra Pradesh. As provided in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the inter-State seniority amongst the judicial officers of different regions was referred to the Central Government and the new State of Andhra Pradesh prepared a common seniority list as directed by the Central Government. Certain litigations arose as to the norms to be adopted for fixing the seniority and ultimately the High Court in a writ proceeding directed that judicial officers in Telengana must be given their due promotions with effect from the date of their juniors being actually promoted. Representations made in that regard having failed, writ petition was filed before the High Court for a direction to the appellants and respondent No. 14 to pay arrears of salary and to give other monetary benefits flowing from their respective dates of notional promotion to the higher posts from the grade of Munsif to Subordinate Judge and from Subordinate Judge to District Judge. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed payment of arrears of salary which was affirmed in appeal. Aggrieved by that order this appeal is filed.
(2.) The High Court took the view that the State Government cannot deny monetary benefits to officers whose ranks in the seniority list were adjusted and notional promotions were effected as a result of review of the common seniority list which attained finality under the provisions of the Act.
(3.) On behalf of the contesting respondents it was submitted that the allottees in the State of Andhra Pradesh could claim promotions on the basis of altered rank in the seniority with retrospective effect and as a necessary corollary thereto, they would have got promotions depending on their ranks in the seniority list and delay on the part of the authorities in finalising the list should not result in deprivation of monetary benefits to such allottees. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the concerned officers did not actually work in the higher post and they had no right to claim monetary benefits.;