Partly allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Seshaiah

Telangana HC7 Jul 2014WP/15165/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order, the High Court upheld the decision directing the petitioner to release annual grade increments to a suspended respondent. The Court held that since no administrative order explicitly withheld the increments, the petitioner was bound to release them under Rule 24, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition filed by the Appellate Authority against the Tribunal order was dismissed. The Tribunal's order directing the petitioner to release annual grade increments from 01.08.2006 to 01.08.2

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.15165 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 28.03.2013, in Original Application No.1258 of 2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same.

¶6

2. Case of respondent No.1 is that while he was working as Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Guntur, petitioner No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.915, Agriculture & Cooperation (VIG-II) Department, dated 01.09.2004, issued a charge memo framing Articles of charges for his alleged misconduct namely he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2.00 crores from State Bank of India General Funds (P.D Account) and deposited the same in Andhra Bank without prior permission from the Competent authority i.e., Commissioner & Director of Marketing. He submitted the explanation for the said charge memo. Vide.G.O.Rt.No.1865, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG-II) Department, dated 24.12.2005, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, vide G.O.Rt.No.891, dated 02.09.2006, he has been reinstated into service. On attaining the age of superannuaiton, he retired from service on 30.10.2009. For not releasing the annual grade increments i.e., from 01.08.2006 to 01.08.2009, the Original Application was filed. Considering the fact that no orders were passed with regard to stoppage of annual grade increments of respondent No.1, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application directing the petitioners herein to release the said increments within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order.

¶7

3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the

¶8

charges famed against respondent No.1 have been proved and proposals were sent to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for appropriate punishment, and the same were confirmed; that a show notice, dated 05.12.2009, was issued to respondent No.1 as to why the penalty of withholding of entire pension and gratuity should not be imposed against him under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and hence, she prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶9

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that there is no impediment for the authorities for release of annual grade increments in spite of the fact that respondent No.1 was placed under suspension and therefore, the order under challenge needs no interference by this Court as it does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court.

¶10

5. Facts are not in dispute. Respondent No.1 was placed under suspension for his alleged misconduct of committing of certain irregularities in discharging his duties. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted after framing the articles of charges. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. But, that issue is not required to be answered in the present Writ Petition, because the Writ Petition is challenged against the order of the Tribunal, whereunder the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to release the annual grade increments of respondent No.1 during his suspension period i.e., from 01.08.2006 to 01.08.2009.

¶11

6. Under F.R.24 an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. Admittedly, no orders were passed withholding of annual grade increments of respondent No.1 though he was placed under suspension for a period of three years. In the absence of order of withholding of annual grade increments, the petitioners herein are bound to release the annual grade increments of respondent No.1. That was not done so. Therefore, precisely that is the reason why, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to release annual grade increments of

¶12

respondent No.1 during his suspension period i.e., from 01.08.2006 to 01.08.2009 and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶13

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

__________ JUSTICE ANIS JULY 07, 2014 YVL

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.15165 OF 2014

¶19

07.07.2014

¶20

YVL

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Seshaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Seshaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Subramanyam, Vs The State of Ap.

Bitra Siva Nagamalleswara Rao Vs The Honble Chairman, Special Court under the Andhra

The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri.Satyanarayana

M.Seetharama Raju Vs Shiva Kumar

N. Reddaiah, Y.S.R. District, Vs Special Chief Secretary to Government

T.Venkateswara Rao, Vs The District Legal Services Authority