IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 42809 OF 2018 Between: Y.Pushpareni, W/o. G.Prasad Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Scientist ( Plant Breading ), Regional agricultural Research Station, Lam, Guntur, R/o. Hyma Pride, Flat No. 103, Bhrundavan Garden, 6"^ lane, Guntur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation (Agri.lll) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur,Guntur District. 2. The Registrar, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Administrative Office, Lam, Guntur, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent in issued the impugned proceedings No. 539/Ser.il/A1/2007 dated 4-09-2018 while approving the fixation of pay not allowing FR 22 (a) (i), FR 22 (b) increments in fixation from state pay scales to UGC pay scales stating that not eligible which is contrary to the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.AGST/473/ Agri.111/2017 dated 02-05-2018 is illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14 and 16 of constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to give the benefit of FR 22 (a) (i) and 22 (b) increments as per fitment formula-ll of GO.Ms.No. 58 Higher Education ( CE) department dated 20-09-2017. f lA 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings issued by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings No. 539/Ser.ll/A1/2007 dated 4-09-2018 by extend the benefit of FR 22 (a) (i) and 22 (b) as per fitment formula-ll of GO.Ms.No.58 Higher Education (CE) department dated 20-09-2017 pending disposal of the above Writ Petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK KARIMULLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: M/s. S. PRANATHI The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010885262018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] T TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 42809/2018 Between: ...PETITIONER Y.pushpareni AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: l.SHAIK KARIMULLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) 1. S PRANATHI 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1. India for the following relief: “to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issued the impugned proceedings No 539/Ser II/A1/2007 dated 4092018 while approving the fixation of pay not allowing FR 22 a i FR 22 b increments in fixation from state pay scales to UGC pay scales stating that not eligible which is contrary to the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No AGST/473/ Agri IIU2017 dated 02052018 is illegal arbitrary violation of Article 14 and 16 of constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to give the benefit of FR 22 a i and 22 b increments as per fitment formula II of GO Ms No 58 Higher Education CE department dated 20092017 and pass” 4 2 7 2. Heard Sri. Shaik Karimulla,learned counsel for petitioner and learned Asst. Government Pleader for Agriculture for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the initially. appointed as an Agricultural Extension Officer petitioner was on 14.06.1999 in Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University and she was promotedas Agriculture Officer on 16.08.2004 upon graduating B.Sc. Agriculture. These two posts are holding state government pay scales. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner was appointed as Scientist (Assistant Professor cadre) on 22.02.2014 in Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding which post holds pay of UGC Pay scales. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that the submitted a representation dated 11.10.2017 to the 2'''^ application of fitment formula-ll petitioner respondent seeking per G.O.Ms. No. 58, Higjier Education (CE) Department, dated 20.09.2017, for fixation of her pay in UGC pay scales of 2006 from RPS 2005 and 2010. Learned counsel would further submit that the 2 respondent sought for clarification from the government as to whether the fitment formulae can be extended to the petitioner or not and based on the as clarification received from the government, her pay was fixed as per G.O.Ms. No.. 58, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 20.09.2017. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that State Party has returned the fixation of Audit pay to the petitioner and disallowed application of FR 22(a)(i) and FR 22(B) to the petitioner since the post held by ~r 3 % the petitioner is not a promotional post but similar benefit was extended to two other lecturers by name G.Gowri and N.Ankamma, by the Commissioner of Higher Education vide proceedings dated 06.04.2018 but not to the petitioner. Learned Asst. Government Pleader would submit that the fitment 6. formulae vide G.O.Ms.No. 58 is allowed for the Junior Lecturers who got promoted to Degree College Lecturers from Junior Colleges. The pay of the I petitioner is fixed in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 58 issued by the Government of AP and the issue of pay fixation is always referred to approval of State Audit since State Audit is competent authority to approve fixation of pay. Accordingly, the fixation of pay was sent to State Audit for approval and the same was returned on objection that the petitioner is not eligible for increment under FR 22(a)(i) and FR 22(b). The post of Asst. Professor held by the petitioner is not a promotion post from lower cadre, it is a direct post on fulfilling the required qualifications and other conditions prescribed by the UGC.The petitioner worked as Agricultural Officer which is a non-teaching post in the university and she applied for the Assistant Professor post and on selection, she was appointed as Scientist (Assistant Professor cadre) which is not by way of promotion. As such, she is not eligible to claim the benefit of increment under FR 22(a)(i) and (b). Learned Asst. Government Pleader would finally pray# to dismiss the Writ Petition. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of material placed 7. on record, the petitioner was initially appointed as Agricultural Extension Officer in the year 1999 and was promoted as Agricultural Officer in 2004 on 4 graduating B.Sc. Agriculture. Later, in the year 2014, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor and was selected. Subsequently, she was appointed as Scientist (Asst. Professor cadre). The posts Agricultural Extension officer and Agricultural Officer which are non-teaching posts hold state pay scales whereas, the post of Asst. Professor holds UGC pay scale. As rightly put by the Asst. Government Pleader, as per the G.O.Ms. No. 58, Higher Education (CE) Department, dated 20.09.2017 fitment formulae-ll is applicable the petitioner but not the benefit under FR 22(a)(i) and FR 22(b) since it is a post under direct recruitment. The objections raised by the State Audit are in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 58 and the petitioner cannot claim increments as per FR 22(a)(i) and FR 22(b), since it is not a promotional post. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Commissioner of Higher Education, vide proceedings dated 06.04.2018, gave FR 22(a)(i) and FR 22(b) benefit to two other similarly placed lecturers,but that does not automatically I entitle the petitioner to claim similar benefit. If such being the case, the respondent authorities are at liberty to look into such cases and take appropriate steps, according to rules. 8. 9. With this observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA 6ASU ASSISTANT REGJSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE6TO^rOFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Shaik Karimulla, Advocate [OPUC] ^ 2. One CC to M/s. S. Pranathi, Advocate[OPUC] ^ 3. Two CCs to GP for Agriculture, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies. ssb V HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.42809 of 2018 ^ 0 8 JUL 2025 j€: DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS