THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 600 OF 2019 Between: K V Narayana Rao, S/o Late Sri. Kasi Vishwanadham, aged 80 years Retired Lecturer, R/o Gontuvanipalem, Via Yeleswaram, Addateegala Mandalam, East Godavari District -533 429 occ: ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Special Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat Office, VelagapudM522 503 (A.P.) 2. The Accountant General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, National Highway-7, Ambedkar Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction and particularly in the nature of WRIT OP MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2 in denying revision of more pension of the petitioner holding the last drawn pay of the petitioner as Rs. 2,050/- instead of Rs. 2,090/- by declaring the Communication 09.05.2016 in PRE98/REV-CELL/2014-15/185032 dt. as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, also to direct the 3'^^ Respondent to revise the pension of the petitioner duly considering the increment due to the petitioner on 01.01.1988 and regularization of leave from 10.12.1987 to 04.02.1988 and to further direct the respondents to pay arrears of pension and future pension to the petitioner as per revision. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 15i CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to the Petitioner by considering the last drawn pay pension to pay of the Petitioner at in terms of GO Ms. No.223 Finance (HRM-VI) Department, dated 15.12.2014 pending the disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D NARENDRA REDDY DEGAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent No t: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MS M MANIKYA VEENA Representing Rs.2,090/-, MRS K SWARNA SESHU Counsel for the Respondent No.ljr -- The Court made the following ORDER: 1 APHC010013672019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 600/2019 Between: K V Narayana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D NARENDRA REDDY DEGAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 2.KSWARNASESHU The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “.....to issue a writ order or direction, more particuiarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, deciaring the action of the Respondents, particulariy Respondent No. 2 in denying revision of pension of the petitioner holding the last drawn pay of the petitioner as Rs.2,050/- instead of Rs.2,090/- by declaring the Communication dt.09.05.2016 in PRE98/REV-CELU2014-15/185032 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, also to direct the 2™ Respondent to revise the pension of the petitioner on 01.01.1988 2 and regularization of leave from 10.12.1987 to 04.02.1988 and to further direct the respondents to pay arrears of pension and future pension to the petitioner as per revision and pass such other order or orders. 2. Heard Sri D.Narendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned St Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing for the 1 respondent and Ms.M.Manikya Veena, learned counsel, representing Mrs.K.Swarna Seshu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he was denied the revision of pension holding that his last drawn pay as Rs.2,050/- instead of Rs.2,090/- vide communication dated 09.05.2016 which was issued by respondentNo.2. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders since in the light of Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.223 Finance (HRM-VI) Department, dated 15.12.2014, the benefit of fixing the pension on the last pay drawn is extended to the Government servants retired prior to 25.05.1998. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the petitioner worked as Lecturer in Andhra Polytechnic College, Kakinada and retired from service in the year 1988. The petitioner was granted pension as per the then existing rules by the date of his retirement considering the average of his ten months last pay drawn. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.223 Finance (HRM-VI) Department, dated 3 15.12.2014 was issued by the Government extending the benefit of fixing the pension based upon the last pay drawn by the Government servants, to the Government servants retired prior to 25.05.1998. So, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under The petitioner has submitted the G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 15.12.2014. representation to the Principal of the College for revision of his pension in the A proposal has been light of the G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 15.12.2014. submitted to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 17.02.2016 along with Annexure-1, Annexure-11 (Part-ll), which clearly shows his last basic pay drawn While so, the respondent No.2 passed order dated 09.05.2016 stating that no revision is admissible as the last pay drawn and average emoluments are the same and returned the proposals of the revision of pension. The order of respondent No.2 would further show that the last pay drawn is Rs.2,050/- only, but not Rs.2,090/-. The petitioner has placed on record the material to show that his last basic pay drawn is Rs.2,090/-, but not was Rs.2,090/-. Rs.2,050/-. For ready reference, the pay bill register extract of the petitioner is extracted below; “The Post was sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.541 Edn., dt.11.7.58 on permanent basis read with G.O.Ms.No.2514 Edn., 22.9.58. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.288 Fin & PLg (FW PRC-I) Dept., dt. 17.11.86, he opted to the AP revised scale of pay 1986 w.e.f. 1.7.86 and his pay has been fixed at Rs.2030+60 PR (FPl) w.e.f. 1.7.86 in the scale of Rsl 230-50-1730-60-2330 vide Principal’s proceedings No. (copy enclosed). He was sanctioned increment raising his pay from Rs.2030+60 PR(FPI) to Rs.2090+60 PR (FPl) w.e.f. 1.1.87 vide Principal’s proceedings No.—“ f 4 The pay bill register of the petitioner from March, 1988 is also placed on record. For ready reference, said pay bill register extract of the petitioner is 6. extracted below; EWF Net HRA PP Gross PT SI.No. DA GPF/ Pay (FPI) GIS 2594 60.00 5 279.50 430 2859.50 220.20 20 2090 1. Page No.71 Salary for the month of March, 1988 2599.50 20 60.00 220.20 279.50 430 2859.50 2. Page No.93 Salary for the month of April, 1988 2090 20 2599.50 60.00 2859.50 220.20 3. Page No.116 Salary for the month of May, 1988 2090 279.50 430 20 2599.50 279.50 430 60.00 2859.50 220.20 4. Page No.141 Salary for the month of June, 1988 2090 There is no dispute about the fact that the last basic pay drawn by the petitioner is Rs.2,090/-, but not Rs.2,050/-. At this juncture, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel is that since the Principal of the College failed to submit Annexure-ll (Part-ll) B, respondent No.2 could not revise considering his last basic pay drawn as Rs.2,090/-. Be that as it may, the record shows the age of the petitioner is 80 years as on the date of filing of the present petition. Today, we are in March, 2025. So, he may be aged about 87 years. Now, directing the petitioner to implead the Principal as a party or for production of Annexure-ll (Part-ll) B, is amounting to causing further hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner worked as a Government servant. 7. The material placed on record is vivid to the effect that his last basic pay drawn is Rs.2,090/-. In that view of the matter, instead of causing further delay in this matter, since no contra material placed on record to dispute such documents filed by the petitioner along with the petition, it is apposite to allow this writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to pass orders afresh considering the case of 8. the petitioner treating his last basic pay drawn as Rs.2,090/- subject to confirmation from the Principal of that college forthwith, within a period of ten days from this day. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to 9. costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government of AP., A.P. Secretariat Office, Velagapudi-522 503 (AP) 2. The Accountant General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Governorpeta, Vijayawada. 3. One CC to Sri D Narendra Reddy Degapudi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mrs K Swarna Seshu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:25/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.600 of 2019 ^OF ANDH^A yo & ^ 21 m 2025 ^ . Current Section . J ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS