Dasari Siva Sankara Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

DASARI SIVA SANKARA PRASAD,, S/O. SREE RAMULU, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC DEPUTY PROJECT ENGINEER, R/O. 37-5-78/2, SAI RAM NAGAR, BACK SIDE COCACOLA, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-530007.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CO-OPERATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ARIDHRA PRADESH-522237.

¶16

THE ANAKAPALLE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, (RESCO) IS LOCATED AT HOUSE NO B-1539, OPPOSITE BHARAT PETROL BUNK, ANAKAPALLE BYPASS, KASIMKOTA, VISAKHAPATNAM-531031, ANDHRA PRADESH-531031.

¶17

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DOOR NO 216/83, NEAR SKYLARK TOWERS, IT LINE SHYAMALA NAGAR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522006.

¶18

2

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the annual increments due to the petitioner, solely on the ground of pendency of an ACB case and also in not considering the reply of the petitioner dated 09.06.2026 to the memo in Memo No. MD/RESCO/KSK/PE/JAO-PRS/D.No.108/2025 dated 02.08.2025 to release all withheld increments with consequential benefits and arrears as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India consequentially - and pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.V SAI KUMAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 17455/2026

¶30

O R D E R:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not releasing the annual grade increments due to the Petitioner on the ground of pendency of ACB cases, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6617 of 2004 and similar judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No. 9228 of 2021, 4553 of 2021, and 18004 of 2022, wherein this Court, in similar circumstances had directed the Respondent Authorities to sanction the annual grade increments after referring to the provisions of F.R.24. No other ground was urged by the petitioner.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Representation of the Petitioner for the purpose as sought would be considered by the Respondent authorities and an appropriate decision would be taken.

¶34

Heard both the counsel.

¶35

The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6617 of 2004, dated 04.11.2004, was considering the case of an individual seeking subsistence allowance after factoring in the annual grade increments. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had directed that the subsisting allowance be

¶36

4

¶37

paid after taking into account the annual increments. In the Writ Petition filed by the State, the Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the provisions of FR 24, held that unless an order of withholding increments is passed, the same cannot be withheld. The paragraphs Nos. 5, 6, and 7 thereof are extracted below:

¶38

“It is contended by the Petitioners that in view of the provisions of F.R.24, as the Respondent has not been in active service, there is no method by which his conduct in service be judged. Therefore, he is not entitled to any incremental benefits. In view of the provisions of F.R.24:

¶39

“ F.R.24. An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a Government Servant by (the State Government), or by any authority to whom the State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment the withholding of an increment the withholding authority shall state the period of which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments”.

¶40

It is apparent from the rule that an increment shall be drawable by an employee as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may however be withheld on proof of a Government Servant’s unsatisfactory or bad conduct. However, that an order withholding increments shall state the period from which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have effect of postponing future increments. In any event, an order of withholding of increments constitutes a penalty and requires following the due procedure under the provisions of A.P.C.S. Rules, 1991.

¶41

It is not the case of the Petitioners that any such procedure was followed or an order withholding the increments of the respondent was passed.

¶42

In the above circumstances, the assumption of the Petitioners that the respondent is not entitled to the incremental benefits is misconception. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference in this Writ Petition”.

¶43

5

¶44

The said principle was followed in series of judgments of this Court in

¶45

W.P.Nos 9228 of 2021, 4553 of 2021, and 18004 of 2022.

¶46

In that view, the present Writ Petition is allowed declaring the withholding the annual grade increments, as illegal, and consequently, the Respondents are directed to release the annual grade increments due to the

¶47

Petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶50

Date: 02.07.2026 ARR

¶51

Whether the order is:

¶52