APHC010548942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28492/2025 Between: J Hari Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S V INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.28492 of 2025 O R DE R: The Writ Petition is filed questioning the Memo No.EFS01-14023/7/2018-S4-EFS&T, dated 03.09.2020, in rejecting the plea of the Petitioner for treating the period of suspension from 29.11.2012 to 05.03.2013 as on duty as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner had retired as Assistant Conservator of Forest on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. While working as D.F.O., Krishna Division, he was placed under suspension on 21.11.2012 regarding certain irregularites alleged against him. Assailing the said Order, the Petitioner filed O.A.No.9500 of 2012 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) and the Tribunal vide Order dated 13.02.2013, set aside the Order of Suspension. Consequent thereto, the Petitioner was reinstated into the service and had joined the Department on 06.03.2013. 3. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner on 25.03.2013. After completion of the Enquiry, vide 3 G.O.Ms.No.6 Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (Sec.IV) Department, dated 25.01.2017, a penalty of 2% cut in pension for a period of three years was imposed agaisnt the Petitioner. 4. As the Respondent Authorities did not pass any Order treating the suspension period i.e., from 27.11.2012 to 05.03.2013 as on duty on the representations of the Petitioner, he filed O.A.No.764 of 2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Order dated 26.04.2018 passed a detailed order and held that the Petitioner is entitled for treating the period of suspension as duty with full pay and allowances. Contrary to the same, the impugned Order was passed by the Respondent Authorities refusing to treat the said period as on duty vide impugned Proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as the Tribunal has the decided the issue, it is not open for the Respondents to pass the impugned Order contrary to the decision of the Tribunal. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that as the impugned Order is dated 03.09.2020, the present Writ 4 Petition seeking enforcement of the Order, dated 26.04.2018 in O.A.No. 764 of 2018 at this length of time cannot be sustained and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 7. Heard the respective counsel. 8. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, vide Orders dated 26.04.2018 in O.A.No.764 of 2018 after considering the case law in vogue at that relevant point of time passed a detailed Order holding that the Petitioner is entitled to seek for treating the period of suspension as duty. The relevant paragraph therein reads as under: “ Therefore, in my considered view, the Appellant is entitled for treating the period of suspension as duty with pay and allowances. Hence, the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant regarding treatment of the period of suspension and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order”. 9. The above highlighted portion is categorical, and the Tribunal has declared that the Petitioner is entitled to the treatment of the period of suspension as duty, and the 5 Order of the Tribunal was not challenged in any independent proceedings. As the Order of the Tribunal had attained the finality, the impugned Order cannot be sustained, and the same is liable to be set aside. As regards the delay in filing Writ Petition, the same is only to the disadvantage of the Petitioner and in the absence of any right created by passage of time, the delay is of no consequence. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: i) The impugned Memo No.EFS01-14023/7/2018-S4- EFS&T, dated 03.09.2020, is set aside. ii) The Respondent Authorities are directed to treat the suspension period of the Petitioner i.e., from 29.11.2012 to 05.03.2013, as duty with pay and allowances. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 14.11.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28492/2025 Dt. 14.11.2025 eha