Kolli Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA.

¶15

THE CHIEF MANAGER P AND BOARD SECRETARY, THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature in WRIT of MANDAMUS declare the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the Petitioner case and his Representation Dated 22.7.2019

¶18

2

¶19

and not protecting his Ex-Serviceman Re-employment pay protection where basic pay existing as on date of his retirement in Military Services which is illegal, arbitrary and the same is contrary to Fundamental Rule15(19) and G.O. Ms. No. 67, Fin. and Pig. (FW.FR.II) Dept., dt. 20-3-1986, G.O.Ms.No.95, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 03.04.2012 and the same is without any authority, which is highly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's Representation Dated 22.7.2019 and consider his legitimate right of Salary re-fixation upon considering his services at Indian Army as per Fundamental Rule15(19) and G.O. Ms. No. 67, Fin. and Pig. (FW.FR.II) Dept., dt. 20-3-1986, G.O.Ms.No.95, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 03.04.2012 and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith process the Petitioner's Salary Pay-pe fixation and advance increments as per Fundamental Rule15(19) and G.O. Ms. No. 67, Fin. & Plg. (FW.FR.II) Dept., dt. 20-3-1986, G.O.Ms.No.95, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 03.04.2012 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems just and proper in facts and circumstances of case to meet the ends of justice.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.T N M RANGA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.T VENKATESWARLU

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

¶29

The petitioner was employed in the Indian Army from 22.08.1994 to 30.11.2011. After he retired from the Army, he joined APSRTC as a Junior

¶30

3

¶31

Assistant. It is claimed that while serving in the Indian Army, he participated in the Kargil War.

¶32

The petitioner, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 20.03.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 03.04.2012, claims advance increments equal to the completed years of service. It is contended that the said G.Os were issued to comply with the directions of the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms, and the Ministry of Home Affairs Department, to provide pay protection to ex-servicemen who joined civil posts. The petitioner thus contends that he is entitled to pay protection fixing advanced increments. In this regard, it is contended that a representation was made to the authorities; however, it has not been considered since 2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Circular Memo dated 26.04.2013 and Circular Memo dated 20.06.2025 on the subject issue and requests the Court to pass appropriate orders in terms of the said Circular Memo.

¶33

The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the increments that he is claiming, since during 1994 to 2011, he was in the Army, and he joined APSRTC subsequently. For the service rendered, he is entitled to a pension. Based on 17 years of service in the Army, he is claiming increments that would amount to a double benefit. It is further contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in APSRTC through direct recruitment. He was selected under the quota reserved for ex-servicemen, and his appointment was through a regular selection process; his pay was fixed at the minimum of the time scale. The

¶34

4

¶35

respondents further contend that the petitioner is not entitled to advance increments, as he was not in the service of APSRTC. The service rendered in the Army does not constitute the service rendered to APSRTC, since he is paid a pension; therefore, the additional increments are not allowable. G.O.Ms.No.95 was issued on 03.04.2012, and the same will have a prospective effect and not a retrospective effect.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.23199 of 2020 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2122 of 2019 and Circular Memo dated 20.06.2025.

¶37

Having regard to the latest Circular Memo of the 1^st respondent dated 20.06.2025 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2122 of 2019, the 2^nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders to grant advance increments in terms of the Circular Memo dated 20.06.2025, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

¶38