Parties must approach the court with clean hands; suppression of material facts leads to dismissal of petitions.

ORDER :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners through virtual mode and Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘GVMC’), appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Writ Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to the respondent authorities for implementation of the order dated 20.07.2012 passed in O.A.No.5971 of 2012 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) Hyderabad.

3. The Writ Petitioners were working as minimum time scale workers in the GVMC. They filed O.A.No.5971 of 2012 seeking release of periodical increments on revised pay scales of 2010, in view of the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, in different O.As., and particularly in O.A.No.7915 of 2022, decided on 26.08.2002.

4. The Tribunal, passed order dated 20.07.2012 in O.A.No.5971 of 2012, which reads as under :-

“13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and after going through the material available on record, I am satisfied that the issue involved in this O.A, is squarely covered by the and dated 26.08.2002 orders granted in O.A.No.7915/2002, O.A.No.7335/2010, dated 27.10.2010, and therefore, the present O.A., is also disposed of on similar lines as that of the O.A.No.7915/2002, dated 26.08.2002 and O.A.No.7335/2010, dated 27.10.2010.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Tribunal has not been implemented though the same attained finality.

6. Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands. They suppressed the material facts, and therefore the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He submits that the exercise of jurisdiction is not intended for such individuals who do not approach this Court with clean hands, placing reliance in Ramjas Foundation and Another V. Union of India and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 38, Thatipamula Naresh Kumar V. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1099 and Kusha Duruka V. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432.

7. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record.

8. Facts not in dispute are as follows.

9. Initially, the petitioners filed C.A.No.1986 of 2013 in O.A.No.5971 of 2012, which was dismissed as barred by limitation, by order dated 10.09.2015. The petitioners, later on filed M.A. No. 1835 of 2016, in E.A.SR No.9013 of 2016 in O.A., for condonation of delay in filing execution petition, after a delay of about four years. The M.A., was allowed, by order dated 11.01.2017, on the condition, that each petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority within eight weeks, and in the event of non-compliance, the M.A., shall stand dismissed and E.A.SR., shall stand automatically rejected.

10. The order dated 11.01.2027 reads as under :-

“In the circumstances stated in the Miscellaneous Application, the delay of four years, four months and ten days shall stand condoned on condition of the applicants 1 to 27 paying at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of eight weeks from today; and in default, this Miscellaneous Application shall stand dismissed and the EASR shall stand rejected automatically.”

11. Challenging the order dated 11.01.2017, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32682 of 2017 before this Court. The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners, vide order dated 22.09.2017 after the petitioners' counsel made such request, though he had presented arguments at some length.

12. The order dated 22.09.2017 reads as under :-

“This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:

"... to issue Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the reco