ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.......to declare the action of the Respondents in not extending the pay scale of Rs. 1010-1800 to the applicants which was extended to the similarly situated persons at Rs. 1010-1800 by issuing G.O.Rt. No. 551 Irrigation and CAD Department, dated 6.8.2004 based on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 4206/92 49955-58/91 and batch and O.A. No. 1368/93 dated 4.2.2003 and the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3469 of 2014 dated 3.6.2014 and the orders in O.A. No. 1991 of 2015 dated 16.4.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the applicants are entitled for pay scale of Rs. 1010-1800 of 1986 and corresponding Pay scales as per Revision of Pay Scales of 1993-1999, 2005-2009 and 2013 on par with other similarly situated persons in whose favour Government issued G.O.Rt. No. 551 Irrigation and CAD Department, dated 6.8.2004 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders.....” 2. Heard Mr. P.V. Ramana learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1010-1810 while granting the said benefit to the similarly situated persons in G.O.Rt. No. 551 Irrigation and CAD (RW.Estt.2) Department, dated 6.8.2004 based on the orders of Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 49955-49958 of 1991, and 4206 of 1992 and 1363 of 1998 dated 4.2.2003 and O.A. No. 3479 of 2014 dated 3.6.2014 for granting pay scale of Rs. 1010-1810, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents while denying all the allegations made in the petition contended that the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4206 of 2003, it was stated that till 1985 when Provincialization of service was made, common pay scales were there both for work charged employees and regular employees. But a distinction is sought to be made in the Irrigation Department after provincialization denying that pay scales of 1010-1800 to employees or Irrigation Department while giving the same scales of pay to other department employees. But a distinction is sought to be made in the Irrigation Department after provincialization denying that pay scales of 1010-1800 to employees or Irrigation Department while giving the same scales of pay to other department employees. The only contention is that there is a change in the recruitment method in case of work charged employees and other employees. But in the Revised Pay Scales of 1986, the only distinction that is sought to be made to the persons who are unqualified should be given the scale of 780-1275 whereas for qualified persons the scale of 1010-1800 should be given. That being the case, the change in the method of recruitment pales into insignificance. It cannot be said that the Pay Revision Commissioner is ignorant of all these aspects which are mentioned by the Government. He further submitted that in the O.A. No. 4206 of 1992, the Tribunal issued orders to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for giving the scale of pay 1010-1800 on par with similarly situated persons (i.e. with qualification SSC+ITI candidates) working in other departments other than Irrigation department and monetary benefits be given from the date of filing the OAs and notional benefits up to the date of filing the OAs be given. He further submitted that there are no specific instructions from Government to implement the Scale 1010-1800 to the work charged employees appointed with SSC+ITI qualifications and as per the existing rule they are not eligible for 1010-1800 scales. Hence prayed to vacate the interim order granted in O.A. No. 3013 of 2016 and prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners herein as on the date of their initial appointment got required qualification of Draughtsman Civil with ITI and fully eligible to hold the respective posts. The 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed as Work Inspectors Grade-IV in the pay scale of Rs. 810-1420 in the year 1990. The 3rd petitioner was appointed on 29.11.1994 and provided with pay scale of Rs. 1595/- in 1993 PRC corresponding scale of Rs. 810/- of 1986. He submits that there are two types of pay scales were provided i.e. qualified and unqualified. For qualified Pay scale of Rs. 1010-1800 is provided and for unqualified pay scale of Rs. The 3rd petitioner was appointed on 29.11.1994 and provided with pay scale of Rs. 1595/- in 1993 PRC corresponding scale of Rs. 810/- of 1986. He submits that there are two types of pay scales were provided i.e. qualified and unqualified. For qualified Pay scale of Rs. 1010-1800 is provided and for unqualified pay scale of Rs. 810-1420 was given and in those circumstances, some of the employees were filed O.A. No. 4206 of 1992, 49955 to 49958 and 1363 of 1998 before the Andhra Pradesh Tribunal at Hyderabad and ultimately, the Hon’ble Tribunal, vide order, dated 4.2.2003 directed that all the Work Charged employees with ITI qualification are entitled for pay scale of Rs. 1010-1810 and corresponding pay scales in the subsequent Pay Revision Commission Scales. Against the same, W.P. No. 8768 of 2004 was preferred before this Court and the same was dismissed on 21.6.2004. Thereafter, Civil Appeal C.C. No. 1925 of 2005 was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 2.5.2005. Subsequently, many individuals approached the Hon’ble Tribunal and obtained similar orders following the above orders. Accordingly the Government has issued G.O.Rt. No. 551 Irrigation and CAD Department, dated 6.8.2004 implementing the orders passed by Tribunal in O.A. No. 4206 of 1992, 49955-49958 of 1991 and batch and O.A. No. 1368 of 1993 extending the pay scale of Rs. 1010-1810 as directed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, catena of O.A. were filed and one of the recent O.A. No. 3172 of 2014 the Tribunal disposed of the same as covered by the earlier orders. Learned counsel further submitted that recently, the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1991 of 2015 against the same R&B Department disposed of the O.A. on 16.4.2015 as it is covered by orders in O.A. No. 3479 of 2014. Therefore the action of the respondents in not extending the pay scale of Rs. 1010-1800 as provided in G.O.Ms. No. 288 dated 17.11.1986 to the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Therefore the action of the respondents in not extending the pay scale of Rs. 1010-1800 as provided in G.O.Ms. No. 288 dated 17.11.1986 to the petitioners, is illegal and arbitrary and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter, contended that in the Memo No. 7710/Ser.IV(1)/2014 dated 23.7.2014 of the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) AP, Hyderabad , it was instructed that, the petitioners were not eligible for extending the new common category scale 1986 of PRC 1986 as the cadre of Work Inspector is not included in G.O.Ms. No. 288 Fin. (Fin. & PRC.I) Department, dated 17.11.2006. He further submits that as per G.O.Ms. No. 288 dated 17.11.1986 the department has implemented the 810-1420 time scale to the Work Inspectors Grade-IV with SSC+ITI qualifications. The Government have clearly clarified that the scale of pay 1010-1800 mentioned in the new common categories cannot be allowed to the ITI workers under the work charged establishment. 7. On hearing, this Court observed that, as per G.O.Ms. No. 288, dated 17.11.1986 at para-5, which reads as under: “5. The pay of the employees in the Revised Pay Scales 1986 shall be fixed with effect from 1.7.1986 or any other subsequent date in accordance with the option exercised as per the rules in the appended Notification. The pay of an employee on 1.7.1986 includes the increment if any accruing to him on that date in the existing scale. In Para-6 (c), it was mentioned as under: 6. The revised Pay Scales shall apply to: (a)........... (b) .......... (c) the Work charged establishment in the engineering branches of Irrigation and Power, Transport, Roads and Buildings, Panchayati Raj, Public Health and Municipal Administration departments in receipt of pay in a regular pay scale in the Revised Pay Scales of 1978.” 8. This Court also observed in the said G.O. about the pay scales in Schedule-I, the statement showing the existing and revised pay scales, and in Schedule-II, common categories existing scales and revised scales and also new common categories. 9. On perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court further observed that the only contention urged by the learned Government Pleader that there is a change in the recruitment method in case of work charged employees and other employees. 9. On perusing the entire material available on record and on hearing the submissions of both the counsels, this Court further observed that the only contention urged by the learned Government Pleader that there is a change in the recruitment method in case of work charged employees and other employees. But in the Revised Pay scales of 1986, the only distinction that is sought to be made is the persons who are unqualified should be given the scale of Rs. 780-1275 whereas for qualified persons the scale of Rs. 1010-1800 should be given. It cannot be said that the Pay Revision Commissioner is ignorant of all these aspects which are mentioned by the Government. When the only distinction sought to be made is between the qualified and unqualified persons. Any other defence or argument for denying the scale to the petitioners cannot be upheld. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioners are qualified to get the scale of pay which is being enjoyed by employees of the other departments and denied to the petitioners, who are employees of Irrigation department, if respondents are denying such scale of pay to the petitioners cannot be upheld by this tribunal. 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for giving the scale of pay on par with similarly situated persons who have been granted the scale of pay in O.A. No. 3479 of 2014 and O.A. No. 1991 of 2015 working in the same department and monetary benefits be given from the date of filing the writ petition and notional benefits upto the date of filing this petition be given. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.