ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2009 passed in O.A. No. 6622 of 2005 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Hyderabad, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent is a retired Mandal Parishad Development Officer and after his retirement, the petitioners have engaged him as District Project Officer on contract basis under Indira Kranthi Patham and remuneration was paid vide G.O.Ms. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000. But the respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 6622 of 2005 seeking regular wages even for re-engagement in terms of the said G.O.Ms. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000. The Tribunal vide-order dated 08.09.2009 allowed the said OA in favour of the respondent and directed the petitioners to pay salary in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000. In paragraph No. 10 of the said G.O. it is clearly stated that these orders are applicable to all Government employees who are re-employed and appointed after retirement and continuing on re-employment, other than those employed on contract basis whether they have retired with or without a pension and or gratuity or any other retirement benefits i.e., Contributory Provident Fund etc., from Civil posts or from the Armed Forces. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners had contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the respondent is not entitled for regular pay scale in terms of paragraph No. 10 of the said G.O as the said G.O differentiates the persons who were re-engaged on certain terms and the persons who were engaged on contract basis. Learned Government Pleader had further contended that G.O.Ms. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000 has no application in the case of the respondent and the Tribunal has erred in directing the petitioners to pay salary and wages to the respondent in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having considered the said submissions, this Court is of the view that since the 1st respondent was reengaged on contract basis, the question of applying G.O.Ms. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000 does not arise. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having considered the said submissions, this Court is of the view that since the 1st respondent was reengaged on contract basis, the question of applying G.O.Ms. No. 145, dated 16.10.2000 does not arise. Paragrah No. 10 of the said G.O. makes it very clear that it is not applicable to the persons who were re-engaged on contract basis. The order passed by the Tribunal was not justified and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 6622 of 2005. No costs. 7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.