APHC010818382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 39417/2018 Between: 1. MARUPATHI RANGAYYA DORA, S/O LATE VENKATA GAMBEERA NAIDU, OCC.RETD WATCHMAN, OFFICE OF B.C.WELFARE OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, R/O DEVANGULA VEEDHI, DASANNAPETA, VIZIANAGARAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, B.C.WELFARE DEPT., SECRETERIATE VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT B C WELFARE OFFICER, B.C.WELFARE, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, B.C. WELFARE, KANURU, SIDDARDA COLLEGE OPP, TADIGADAPA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to issue an appropriate order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the 2nd respondent passed changes in incremental dates of his Co- Employee Sri P.Rajagopala Charyulu for which the petitioner is also entitled as per norms and also calculate the last pay salary correctly and fix the basic and other amounts are not granted by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the wrong calculation of increments of the petitioner lost an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- entitle the same, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 2 pleased to direct the respondents to pay the wrong calculation of increments of the petitioner lost an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- entitle the same, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VARA PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 3 HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 39417 of 2018 ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.... to issue an appropriate order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the 2nd respondent passed changes in incremental dates of his Co-Employee Sri P.Rajagopala Charyulu for which the petitioner is also entitled as per norms and also calculate the last pay salary correctly and fix the basic and other amounts are not granted by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the wrong calculation of increments of the petitioner lost an amount of Rs.5,00, 000/- entitle the same and to pass....” 2. Heard Sri P.Vara Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner. None represented for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner and his colleague, namely Sri Rajagopala Acharyulu were appointed as Cooks on the same date and that when compared to the services of the said Sri P.Rajagopala Charyulu, and the Petitioner are one and the same. But there is a difference in the pay and salary between both of them and that the date of increment of the Petitioner is also not correctly fixed and thereby, Petitioner incurred loss to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the information submitted to the District Legal Services Authority by respondent No.2 particularly in the tabular form would show that the Petitioner and his colleague, Sri Rajagopala Acharyulu were appointed as Cooks on the same date. As is evident from the tabular statement, 4 the post of the Petitioner was converted as Watchman and the post of Sri Rajagopala Acharyulu was converted as Attender on different dates. The family planning increment is Rs.5/- for Cook and Rs.15/- is for Attender as on 01.07.1985. In respect of Petitioner, the family planning increment is Rs.5/- to the Petitioner, whereas, Family Planning increment is Rs.15/- in case of his colleague – Sri Rajagopala Acharyulu as on 09.07.1987. As the Petitioner and his colleague were converted to different posts from the post of Cook on different dates, there is no merit in the argument that the Petitioner incurred loss. There are no grounds to interfere and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it does not preclude the petitioner to get his retiral and other benefits on his superannuation according to the governing rules and law. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 17.06.2025 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 39417 of 2018 17.06.2025 Mjl /*