Dismissed¶8

Smt G Deva Karunamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Apr 2025WP(AT)/978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati; W.P.(AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021 (from O.A.Nos.2224 & 2203 of 2017, APAT; related O.A.No.6879 of 2013); dies non; suspension period regularization 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002; increments during suspension; no work no pay; stoppage of increments with cumulative effect set aside; FR 18; rule 5-A Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules; rule 9(4) and Rule 20 APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991; F.R.54(5); F.R.54(B)(7); G.O.Ms.No.307 Finance (FRII) dated 03.12.2012; interest on delayed pension; laches; DCRG withholding Rs.75,435; AG release Rs.72,028; misappropriation Rs.1,58,720 and Rs.1,01,000; writs dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief can be granted for the suspension period because the proceeding dated 09.10.2006 regularizing the period 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002 as dies non was never challenged. ¶6

Smt G Deva Karunamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's husband is entitled to sanction and payment of increments (with incremental amount/arrears) for the suspension period 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002, which was regularized treating the period as dies non (W.P.(AT).No.978 of 2021). +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

No relief can be granted for the suspension period because the proceeding dated 09.10.2006 regularizing the period 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002 as dies non was never challenged.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

A period treated as dies non does not entitle the employee to any pay; therefore, even though the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect stood set aside, the employee cannot claim increments in pay for the dies non period.

¶6

Key takeaways

If any increment is withheld for any period other than the dies non period, the same may be considered by the concerned authority, since increment cannot be denied without any order of punishment.ratio¶6
Interest on the delayed payment of pension is refused: the petitioner did not establish laches in making the payment, the delay being attributable to the disciplinary proceedings and the usual time taken for processing, sanction and release of the amount.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions (transferred from O.A.Nos.2224 & 2203 of 2017, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal) by the widow of late Ch.Rajendra Prasad, a Government Junior College Principal who died on 31.03.2011, sought (i) sanction and payment of increments for his suspension period 25.01.1999–31.10.2002, which had been regularized as dies non under FR 18 read with rule 5-A of Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, and (ii) interest on delayed release of pensionary amounts of Rs.4,25,363/- and Rs.10,23,487/- from his retirement on 01.11.2004. HELD (B.S. Bhanumathi, J., 02-04-2025): the dies non regularization proceeding dated 09.10.2006 was never challenged, so no relief is available for that period; a dies non period carries no pay, hence no increment is claimable for it even though the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect stood set aside; however, if any increment is withheld for any other period, the concerned authority may consider it, as increment cannot be denied without an order of punishment. Interest on delayed pension was refused — laches were not established, the delay arising from disciplinary proceedings and the usual time taken for processing, sanction and release. Both writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

APHC010026502021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3333]

¶4

Wednesday, the Seco n d day of April, Two Thousand and Twe n ty Five

¶5

Present

¶6

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021 (O.A.Nos.2224 of 2017 & 2203 of 2017)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. G. Deva Karunam m a

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

and

¶11

The State of Andhra Pr a desh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,

¶12

School Education Depa r tment, Secretariat and others

¶13

…. Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner:

¶15

Sri G.V.Ravi

¶16

Counsel for the respondents:

¶17

Ms. C. Indrani, Assis t ant Government Pleader for Services II & III

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

BSB, J W.P (AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021

¶21

COMMON ORDER :

¶22

W.P.(AT).No.978 of 2021 was originally filed as O.A.No.2203 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, to direct the respondents to sanction and pay the due increments of petitioner’s husband for the period from 1996-2003/2004 along with all arrears keeping in view the orders of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.6879 of 2013, with M.A.No.1635 of 2015, dated 04.08.2015 and government memo No.95524/SE/VIG/A3/2015, dated 31.05.2016.

¶23

W.P.(AT).No.977 of 2021 was originally filed as O.A.No.2224 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, to direct the respondents to pay the interest on delayed payments of pension of Rs.4,25,363/- from 01.11.2004 to 01.11.2014 and for an amount of Rs.10,23,487/- from 01.11.2004 to 31.04.2017 till sanction of the same from the date of retirement of petitioner’s husband i.e., 01.11.2004 till sanction of the said amounts respectively as a covered matter of fact in O.A.No.6879 of 2013 with M.A.No.1635 of 2015, dated 04.08.2015.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

¶25

The husband of the petitioner / late Ch.Rajendra Prasad (died on 31.03.2011, worked as Principal at Government Junior College, Pedacherlopalli, Prakasam District. He was placed under suspension vide CIE's Proc.Rc.No.1748/JC.1-2/98, dated 25.01.1999 on the charge that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,58,720/- towards accumulated special fee funds and charges were also framed against

¶26

¶27

BSB, J W.P (AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021

¶28

him by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh / 2^nd respondent. He submitted his defence statement to the 2^nd respondent, on 27.03.1999 and requested to drop the charges. Basing on his defence statement, an enquiry officer was appointed. As he had not participated in the enquiry, an ex-parte enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent had given another opportunity to him to submit the defence statement before the enquiry officer. He submitted the defence statement on 14.02.2001 and attended the enquiry on 25.06.2001. Basing on the said report, proceeding vide Rc.No.795/A/97, dated 10.07.2001, was passed by the 2^nd respondent concluding that the charges levelled against him are proved. He was awarded punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect under rule 9 (4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, besides recovery of an amount of Rs.1,58,720/- from him vide proceedings of the 2^nd respondent vide Proc. Rc.No.Ser.I-2/1748/2001, dated 24.09.2004. On 11.07.2006, he submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent to regularize the suspension period from 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002. The 2^nd respondent, after examining the request made, treated the suspension period i.e., from 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002 as dies non under FR 18 read with rule 5-A of Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, vide procs.Rc.No.Ser.I.A-3/1748/2000, dated 09.10.2006. An entry was also made in the Service Register to that effect. On the allegation that he had misappropriated the government funds for an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- in collusion with the Senior Assistant of the college, charges were framed against him under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, by the 2^nd respondent vide CIE's Proc. Rc. No.Ser.IA2/1748/2000, dated 14.12.2000. After enquiry, the charges were held proved and punishment was given by stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.1,01,000/-

¶29

¶30

BSB, J W.P (AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021

¶31

vide Proc.Rc.No.Ser.I-2/1748/2002, dated 24.09.2004. Further, the responsibility for the misappropriated amount was fixed on the Senior Assistant and the entire amount was recovered from him and was also awarded the punishment of reversion to the lower rank as Junior Assistant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishments, O.A.No.6879 of 2013 with M.A.No.1635 of 2015 was filed seeking release of the full pension and pensionary benefits along with interest to her deceased employee. The Tribunal, on 04.08.2015, directed the respondents to release the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner’s husband including DCRG to the petitioner after withholding an amount of Rs.75,435/- and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Accordingly, Accountant General, Hyderabad released Rs.72,028/- to the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.PAG (A7E0/AP/P6/II/R-1363/SP378/2015-03-2550, dated, 16.11.2016. The present writ petitions were filed seeking increments and interest as noted in prayer portion.

¶32

The respondents filed counter affidavit in W.P.(AT).No.978 of 2021 and narrated the facts of the case as noted above and further submitted briefly as below:

¶33

The duty period of petitioner’s husband from 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002 was not regularized and not treated as duty. Hence the period of 3 years 9 months (1375 days) is dies non . During that period no increments were sanctioned. The Supreme Court of India judgment consisting of three (3) judges, in the case of Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs Bhopal Singh Panchal¹ , held that the employee does not automatically become entitled to full pay and allowances for

¶34

1 AIR 1994 SC 552

¶35

¶36

BSB, J W.P (AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021

¶37

suspension / dismissal period. The court observed that during the period the employee renders no work. He is absent for reasons of his own involvement in the misconduct and the bank in no way responsible for keeping him away from his duties. The bank therefore cannot be saddled with liability to pay him salary and allowance for the period. That will be against the principle of "No work - No pay” and positively inequitable to those who have to work and earn their pay. The Apex Court took the same view in its judgment in Krishnakant Raghunath Bhavanekar Vs State of Maharashtra² and Smt.K.Ponnamma Vs State of Kerala³ . The Supreme Court, in Baldev Singh Vs Union of India⁴ , held that mere acquittal of the employment concerned in criminal case does not automatically entitle him to the arrears of pay where he has no workload for the relevant period on the principle of "No Work No Pay". Further, the government has issued G.O.Ms.No.307 Finance (FRII), dated 03.12.2012 wherein at para 5 of said orders, it is stated “As there is no provision now in fundamental rules for counting the not duty period for purpose of leave, increments and pension, government after careful examination have decided to amend the clauses under F.R.54(5) and F.R.54(B) (7) by adding the words that the leave granted on EOL under the above clause, after exhaustion of other types of leave like earned leave, half pay leave may be counted for purpose of notional increments and pension". In the instant case, the above individual’s leave was not regularized against leave because he had no sufficient leave in his account and the above Supreme Court’s Orders is applicable to the above individual i.e., principles of "No Pay No work". In

¶38

2 1997 (3) SCALE 180

¶39

3 1997 (3) SCALE 342

¶40

4 2005 (8) SCC 747

¶41

¶42

BSB, J W.P (AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021

¶43

view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petitions may be dismissed.

¶44

Heard Sri G.V.Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. C. Indrani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services II & III appearing for the respondents.

¶45

The main grievance of the petitioner is to sanction increments and pay the incremental amount due to the husband of the petitioner during the period of suspension pending enquiry. Such period from 25.01.1999 to 3.10.2002 was regularized treating the period as dies non vide procs.Rc.No.Ser.I.A-3/1748/2000, dated 09.10.2006. As the said proceeding has not been challenged, no relief for the said period can be granted. Therefore, though the benefit of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect has been set aside, as the period of dies-non does not entitle for any pay, the employee cannot claim for increment in pay for the said period. But, if any increment is withheld for any other period, the same may be considered by the concerned authority as increment cannot be denied without any order of punishment.

¶46

Insofar as payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension is concerned, as the petitioner has not established that there are laches in making the payment, it cannot be granted as the delay is on account of the disciplinary proceedings and the usual time taken for processing, sanction and release of the amount.

¶47

8. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶48

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

¶50

BSB, J W.P (AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021

¶51

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

__________________

¶53

B.S.BHANUMATHI, J

¶54

02-04-2025 NSM/RAR

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
O.A.No.2203 of 2017 (for increments of petitioner's husband for 1996-2003/2004) and O.A.No.2224 of 2017 (for interest on delayed pension) were originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, and came before this Court as W.P.(AT) Nos.977 & 978 of 2021.¶1
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's husband (late Ch.Rajendra Prasad, Principal, Government Junior College, Pedacherlopalli, Prakasam District) placed under suspension vide CIE's Proc.Rc.No.1748/JC.1-2/98 dated 25.01.1999 on charge of misappropriating Rs.1,58,720/- from accumulated special fee funds; ex-parte enquiry report initially, further opportunities, defence statements 27.03.1999 and 14.02.2001, enquiry attended 25.06.2001.¶3
Prior proceeding
Charges held proved; punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect under rule 9(4) APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 plus recovery of Rs.1,58,720/- (Proc.Rc.No.Ser.I-2/1748/2001 dated 24.09.2004); representation dated 11.07.2006 sought regularization of suspension period 25.01.1999 to 31.10.2002; the period was treated as dies non under FR 18 read with rule 5-A of Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules vide procs.Rc.No.Ser.I.A-3/1748/2000 dated 09.10.2006, with Service Register entry.¶3
Prior proceeding
Second disciplinary case: charges framed under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 vide CIE's Proc.Rc.No.Ser.IA2/1748/2000 dated 14.12.2000 alleging misappropriation of Rs.1,01,000/- in collusion with the Senior Assistant; after enquiry charges proved; punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.1,01,000/- vide Proc.Rc.No.Ser.I-2/1748/2002 dated 24.09.2004; responsibility fixed on the Senior Assistant, entire amount recovered from him and he was reverted to Junior Assistant.¶3
Prior proceeding
O.A.No.6879 of 2013 with M.A.No.1635 of 2015 was filed aggrieved by the punishments, seeking release of full pension and pensionary benefits with interest; the Tribunal on 04.08.2015 directed release of pension and pensionary benefits including DCRG after withholding Rs.75,435/-, with appropriate orders within four weeks.¶3
Prior proceeding
In compliance, Accountant General, Hyderabad released Rs.72,028/- to the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.PAG (A7E0/AP/P6/II/R-1363/SP378/2015-03-2550, dated 16.11.2016; the present writ petitions were thereafter filed seeking increments and interest.¶3

Smt G Deva Karunamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G Deva Karunamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Akula Ananthalakshmi & 4 Others Vs Nettam Sundaraiah & Another

Mypati Penchalaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt G Deva Karunamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P Narayana Murthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gumma Subbaiah Vs Shaik Peer Ahmed