Disposed¶37

G.Pothuraju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2026WP/18140/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Automatic Advancement Scheme (AAS) special grade increments (16, 18, 24, 30 years) withheld after quashing of Rule 20 APCSR departmental enquiry; charge memo dated 20.11.2008 quashed in WP 19496/2025 dated 01.08.2025 for inordinate delay; Panchayat Raj Assistant Executive Engineer; mandamus to consider representation dated 14.11.2025; time-bound direction to pass orders within two months; Article 226 writ disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation for sanction of AAS scheme at relevant intervals and pass appropriate orders within two (2) months of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand dismissed. ¶37

G.Pothuraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents were required to grant/release the Petitioner's Special Grade increments (16, 18, 24 and 30 years) under the Automatic Advancement Scheme (AAS), given that the departmental enquiry initiated against him stood quashed/set aside as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

Court's answer

On the Learned Government Pleader's submission that the Petitioner's representation will be considered, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation for sanction of the AAS scheme at the relevant intervals and pass appropriate orders within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

Key takeaways

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 by an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Panchayat Raj Department whose departmental enquiry under Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services Rules, 1991 (charge memo Memo.No.Vig.il (2)32647/08 Dt.20.11.2008) had been quashed by this Court in W.P.No.19496 of 2025 (order dated 01.08.2025) on account of inordinate delay, seeking release of Special Grade increments (16, 18, 24 and 30 years) under the Automatic Advancement Scheme (AAS). The Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025 would be considered and appropriate orders passed. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the Respondents to consider the representation for sanction of the AAS scheme at the relevant intervals and pass appropriate orders within two (2) months from receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand dismissed.

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading :

¶2

APHC010337282026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3460]

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 18140/2026

¶10

Between:

¶11

G.POTHURAJU, S/O. G.NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORKING IN THE O/O. ENGINEER-INCHIEF PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. -522237

¶15

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.520001

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

¶18

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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly action of the 2nd respondent in not granting/releasing Special Grade increments i.e., 16 years, 18 years, 24 years and 30 years under Automatic Advancement Scheme (AAS), even though the Departmental enquiry issued in Memo.No.Vig.il (2)32647/08 Dt.20.11.2008 was set aside by the Honble High court in WP.No. 19496/2025 dated 01.08.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and against Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to sanction Special Grade increments i.e. 16 years, 18 years, 24 years and 30 years under Automatic Advancement Scheme (AAS) along with admissible interest and to pass such

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 2nd respondent to sanction and release Special Grade increments i.e., 16 years, 18 years, 24 years and 30 years under Automatic Advancement Scheme (AAS) by considering the representation dated: 14.11.2025 and to pass such

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶28

W.P.No.18140 of 2026

¶29

O R DE R:

¶30

The present writ petition is filed in not granting/releasing Special Grade increments i.e. 16 years, 18 years, 24 years and 30 years under Automatic Advancement Scheme (AAS) even after departmental enquiry initiated against the Petitioner is set aside as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Deputy Engineer on 31.08.1991 in Panchayat Raj Department and was granted 8 years Special Grade increment in the year 2002 under the old scheme. While so, Petitioner was implicated in a departmental enquiry initiated under Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services Rules, 1991 on account of certain allegations. However, the departmental enquiry was pending even in the year 2025.

¶32

At that stage, Petitioner filed W.P.No.19496 of 2025 and this Court taking note of the inordinate delay in concluding the departmental enquiry, allowed the writ petition and quashed the charge memo dated 20.11.2008.

¶33

¶34

In view of the departmental enquiry being quashed, the Petitioner submitted representation for grant of the benefit under the AAS. As the same is not being considered, present writ petition is filed.

¶35

Learned Government Pleader submits that the

¶36

representation of the Petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶37

In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner for sanction of AAS scheme at relevant intervals and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶39

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶40

Date: 07.07.2026

¶41

KLP

¶42

Whether the order is:

¶43