ORDER : GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. 1. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Venkata Suneel Reddy, learned Counsel representing Ms. Y. Ratna Prabha, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. The prayer in the main Writ Petition is as under: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent University in not paying the enhanced remuneration of an additional amount of Rs.5,000/ for every month from August, 2022 pnwards to the petitioners 1 and 2 and in not giving annual Increment of Rs. 1,000/ for every year ofcontinuous service i.e. from 2018 to 2023 to the petitioners in terms of G.O.Rt.No.110, Higher Education (UE) Department dt. 06.07.2022 of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the arrears of enhanced remuneration and also annual increments in favour of petitioners as per their eligibility and further direct the 3 rd respondent to continue to pay the said enhanced remuneration as well as annual increments In terms of G.O.Rt.No.110, Higher Education (UE) Department dt. 60-07-2022 of the 7th respondent, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” 3. The prayer in this Interlocutory Application is as under: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to post the W.P. No. 8728/2024 under the caption “FOR BEING MENTIONED” and correct the observations made by this Hon’ble Court in .WP.No.8728/2024 dt.24-04-2024 by deleting the words “subject to the final outcome of W.P.No.44665/2017” and “further direct the 3rd respondent to pay the enhanced remuneration of Rs.5000/- Per Month w.e.f. August, 2022 in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and to sanction annual increment of Rs. 1,000/- for every year of continuous service from 2018 to 2023 in favour of the all the petitioners by implementing the GO Rt No.110 date 06-07-2022” in the interest ofjustice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. 1,000/- for every year of continuous service from 2018 to 2023 in favour of the all the petitioners by implementing the GO Rt No.110 date 06-07-2022” in the interest ofjustice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. When this case came up for admission on 24.04.2024, Sri P.Venkata Suneel Reddy, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Y. Ratna Prabha, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has submitted the Written Instructions dated 16.04.2024 furnished by the Registrar of the Rayalaseema University (Respondent Nos.3 and 4) across the table and he has drawn the attention of this Court to Para - 3 of the Written Instruction dated 16.04.2024. 5. Since it is of relevance, the Written Instruction dated 16.04.2024 rendered by the Registrar of the Rayalaseema University is extracted in its entirety. “Points for the Writ Petition filed bv Dr M Obulesu Dr B Safnath and Dr U Naqi Reddy in AP High Court for the implementation of GO 110 1. 5. Since it is of relevance, the Written Instruction dated 16.04.2024 rendered by the Registrar of the Rayalaseema University is extracted in its entirety. “Points for the Writ Petition filed bv Dr M Obulesu Dr B Safnath and Dr U Naqi Reddy in AP High Court for the implementation of GO 110 1. This is to submit that Dr M Obulesu, Dr B Sainath and Dr U Nagi Reddy have filed a case to pay minimum time scale and other benefits to them in AP High Court with WP No 44665 of 2017 with the following prayer "to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS under 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents in not paying minimum time scale and other benefits tithe Petitioners attached to the post of Assistant Professors as per revised pay scales applicable to regular Asssitant Professors working under the 1st Respondents University i e Rs 21 600/plus 132 per cent D A In terms of GO Ms No 38 dated 23 06 2016 as arbitrary illegal discriminatory and unconstitutional violating Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violating Article 41 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others i/s Jagit Singh and others reported in 2016 indlaw s 738 and issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to forthwith pay minimum time scale and other benefits to the Petitioners attached to the post of Assistant Professors working in the 1st Respondent University in terms of GO Ms No 38 dated 23 06 2016 with effect from the date of their initial appointment with all other consequential benefits and to pass" 2. This case is pending before the Honourable AP High Court. This is sub-judice. 3. Rayalaseema University would like to implement the GO 110 to the petitioners as per the out come of the Writ Petition WP 44665 of 2017. 4. This is also submitted that Dr M Obulesu, DrBSainath and Dr U Nagi Reddy have requested for additional payment of Rs 5000/- per month and an annual increment of Rs 1000/-as per the minimum qualification laid down in GO 110 While implementing the GO 110 to them. Sd/xxxxx REGISTRAR Rayalaseema University. Kurnool-518007.” 6. Ld. 4. This is also submitted that Dr M Obulesu, DrBSainath and Dr U Nagi Reddy have requested for additional payment of Rs 5000/- per month and an annual increment of Rs 1000/-as per the minimum qualification laid down in GO 110 While implementing the GO 110 to them. Sd/xxxxx REGISTRAR Rayalaseema University. Kurnool-518007.” 6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, while drawing the attention of this Court to Para-3 of the above Written Instruction, had indicated that the present Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of the Para-3 of the Written Instruction. Vide Order dated 24.04.2024, basing on the Written Instruction, this Court was pleased to disposed of this Writ Petition by passing the following vide Order dated 24.04.2024: “Heard Smt. KavithaGottipati, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners (appearing through video conference) and Sri P. VenkataSuneei Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Y. RatnaPrabha, Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. Sri P. Venkata Sunil Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing , for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has submitted Written Instructions dated 16.04.2024, issued by the Respondent No.3. This Written Instruction is taken on record. 3. Sri P. Venkata Sunil, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has drawn the attention of this Court to Para No.3 of the Written Instruction. The same is usefully extracted hereunder: “3. Rayalaseema University would like to implement the GO 110 to the petitioners as per the outcome of the , w rit Petition WP 44665 of 2017. ’ 4. Basing on this Written Instruction, the Respondents would implement G.O.No.110 in favour of the Writ Petitioners, subject to the outcome in W.P.No.44665 of 2017. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has no objection for the same. 5. This Court would deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by recording the undertaking of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the demand of the Writ Petitioners in terms of additional payment of Rs.5,000/- per month and an annual increment of Rs. 1,000/- as per the minimum qualification laid down in G.O.No.110, would continue in favour of the Writ Petitioners, subject to the final outcome In .WP.No.44665 of 2017. 6. With these observations and directions, this Writ petition stands disposed of No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, ifany, stand closed In terms of this order. 7. 1,000/- as per the minimum qualification laid down in G.O.No.110, would continue in favour of the Writ Petitioners, subject to the final outcome In .WP.No.44665 of 2017. 6. With these observations and directions, this Writ petition stands disposed of No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, ifany, stand closed In terms of this order. 7. Thereafter, it appears that when the Writ Petitioners has approached the Respondent Authorities, the Respondent Authorities have clarified that the increments and additional payment of Rs.5,000/- per month would be paid only after the disposal of the W.P.No.44665 of 2017. When the Writ Petitioners verified the particulars with regard to the pending Writ Petition before this Court bearing W.P.No.44665 of 2017, it was noticed by the Writ Petitioners that the said Writ Petition was filed seeking minimum time scale, which has absolutely no relevance to the present case on hand. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners/Applicants would submit that the then Registrar of the University had mislead this Court by stating that the G.O.Ms.No.110 would be implemented only after knowing the final outcome in the W.P.No.44665 of 2017. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners/Applicants herein has filed this Application bearing I.A.No.2 of 2024 on 24.08.2024. The Writ Petitioners have also filed a Memo on 19.07.2024 for placing on record the Affidavit filed in support of the W.P. No.44665 of 2017 with a view to explain to the Court that the prayer sought in W.P.No.44665 of 2017 has no nexus with that of the present Writ Petition. She would submit that the Official Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, having committed a gross misconduct and perjury by misleading the Court, cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of their own wrongs. The Registrar of the University has deliberately mislead this Court by stating that G.O.Ms.No.110 dated 06.07.2022 would be implemented after knowing the final outcome in the pending Wnt Petition No.44665 of 2017 knowing full well that the subject involved in the pending W.P.No.44665 of 2017 has no nexus with the prayer in the present Writ Petition. 9. This Court has considered the documents on record and the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Smt. Y. RatnaPrabha, Ld. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Having heard the same, the matter was reserved for Orders. 10. 9. This Court has considered the documents on record and the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Smt. Y. RatnaPrabha, Ld. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Having heard the same, the matter was reserved for Orders. 10. This Court has noticed the prayer sought in the W.P.No.44665 of 2017, which, in no uncertain terms, is with regard to the minimum time scale of pay. The Writ Petitioners therein (in W.P.No.44665 of 2017) are placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh; 2017 (1) SCO 148. Admittedly, the said case relates to the payment of minimum time scale. 11. This Court has already noted the prayer sought in the present Writ Petition and the Writ Petitioners are seeking parity in terms of an Order passed by this Court dated 02.11.2023 in W.P.No.28289 of 2023. 12. Having considered the above facts, this Court is of the view that the Registrar of the University has submitted the wrong Written Instruction on 16.04.2024, basing on which, this Court has disposed of the Writ Petition on 24.04.2024. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to recall the Order dated 24.04.2024 in W.P.No.8728of 2024 in view of the fact that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have submitted the Written Instruction wrongly. 13. Accordingly, I.A.No.02 of 2024 is allowed. Consequently, the Order passed by this Court dated 24.04.2024 in W.P.No.8728 of 2024 is hereby recalled. Registry is directed to restore the Writ Petition to its original file and list this matter on 26.06.2025 as per the Roster.