Chetaparthi Sanmukharaju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION VIJAYAWADA N.T.R. DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT, OFFICER APSRTC VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶16

THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. MADDELAPALEM DEPOT VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 topleased to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing and paying the increments from the year 2021 to till date as illegal , arbitrary ,

¶19

violative of Circular No.PD-24/1993 dated 03.04.1993 and accordingly set aside the 4th respondent order No.Pl/RTI Act (21)/2022-MDP dated.05.01.2023, communicated under RTI Act, and consequentially direct the respondents to release and pay the increments from the year 2021 to till date and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 release and pay the increments from the year 2021 to till date and pass

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶23

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 t is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit in W.P. No. 2236/2025

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶28

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing and paying the increments from the year 2021 till date as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Circular No. PD-24/1993, dated 03.04.1993, and accordingly to set aside the 4th respondent’s order No. P1/RTI Act(21)/2022MDP, dated 05.01.2023.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suspended by the 4th respondent on 18.08.2017 and subsequently the 4th respondent has revoked the said order on 21.09.2017. Thereafter, posting orders were issued to the petitioner on 25.09.2017. The petitioner was denied increments from 2018 to 2020, and subsequently the respondents are not releasing the increments from the year 2021 till date. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application on 21.04.2022 and the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 05.01.2023, stating that the petitioner is not entitled for release of increments and also stating that the instructions issued vide Circular No. PD-24/1993, dated 03.04.1993, are applicable in respect of drawal of normal annual increments only (i.e., non-suspension cases only). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, according to F.R.24 of the A.P.Fundamental Rules, an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld, by an order of competant authority. The

¶34

said issue was considered by this Court in order W.P.No.9228 of 2021 dated 13.07.2021, which reads as follows;

¶35

“this Court is of the opinion that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner FR-24 fell for consideration in the Division Bench judgment i.e., W.P. No.6617 of 2004.

¶36

The Division Bench clearly held that order of withholding increment is an exception rather than the rule and that the three increments can only be withheld on proof of case, unsatisfactory service or bad conduct. It is also mentioned that such an order should state the period from which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of withdrawal, postponing the future increments also.

¶37

Ultimately, the learned Judges concluded that an order holding the increment is in the nature of a penalty and can only be issued if due process is followed.

¶38

The same is reiterated in the subsequent judgment of the Bench and also of the learned Single Judge. This is applicable to the present facts and nothing to the contrary was pointed out by the respondents.

¶39

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents in withholding the increments of the petitioner is not correct and contrary to the settled law on the subject. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the increments due to the petitioner.”

¶40

Following the above said judgment and also following the judgment of this Court in Komma Venkata Prasada Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , in W.P. No. 30863 of 2025 this Court holds that the action of the

¶41

respondents in not granting annual grade increments is illegal and consequently directs the respondents to release the same to the petitioner within a period of one (01) month.

¶42

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents mainly relied upon the averments made in paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit, wherein the respondents relied on Circular Memo No. 27703/778-A/FR.II/2012, dated 26.02.2013, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, regarding the applicability of Fundamental Rules. Specific instructions were reiterated concerning the sanction of increments during the suspension period, pending its regularization.

¶43

According to the proviso under F.R. 26(a), on perusal of the counter and also the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and in Komma Venkata Prasada Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , this Writ Petition is disposed of, and directing the respondents to release the increments of the petitioner from the year 2021 onwards. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶45

JUSTICE D RAMESH 23.01.2026 RMD

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO: 2236/2025

¶48

23.01.2026 rmd

Chetaparthi Sanmukharaju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetaparthi Sanmukharaju v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dake Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Depot Manager, Vs K.Nagendra

R Sujatha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ram Sudarshan Prasad Vs the Union of India

Peddireddy Ratnamala Vs Mulagala Pushpalata @ Peddireddy Pushpalatha

Sk. Yusuf Saheb, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh