APHC010527782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27696/2025 Between: D.V. Ramana Raju ... PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R TAGORE 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.27696 of 2025 O R DE R: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not providing ‘Pay Protection’ to the Petitioner on being appointed as ‘Office Subordinate’ after initial appointment as ‘Jeep Driver’. 2. The facts in brief are as follows; The Petitioner was initially appointed as a ‘Jeep Driver’ on 30.10.1984 in Yeleru Reservoir Cannel, Division No.15, Uttara Kanchi and later worked at Yeleru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram, East Godavari. After completion of the Project Work, the Petitioner and others were allotted to the office of the District Medical and Health Office, Kakinada, and subsequent thereto, the Petitioner was allotted to the Commercial Tax Department vide Proceedings No.F.DisA6/11729/94, dated 13.12.1994. Consequent thereto, the Petitioner joined in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Kakinada on 26.01.1995. 3 3. While so, the Petitioner, after serving for nearly 30 years in the Department of Commercial Tax, submitted an application for appointment in the cadre of ‘Office Subordinate’ with ‘Pay Protection’ as no posts of Drivers were sanctioned to the Commercial Tax Department. Pursuant to the said representation, the Joint Commissioner (ST), Kakinada, vide Proceedings No.P2/84/2007, dated 19.06.2022 accepted the same and reverted him to the post of ‘Office Subordinate’ without protection of pay. Subsequently, the Petitioner made another representation to the Respondent-authorities to provide him pay protection and the same was not considered. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner had retired in the cadre of ‘Office Subordinate’ on 30.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that similarly placed person by name Sri M. Siddaiah, Jeep Driver, who was also reverted to the post of ‘Office Subordinate’ pursuant to the lack of ‘Jeep Driver’ post, was permitted to retire as ‘Jeep Driver’ with pay protection vide Proceedings Rc.No.A3/324/2019, dated 09.06.2020. 4 5. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the appointment to the post of ‘Office Subordinate’ was on account of lack of post of ‘Jeep Driver’ and the same cannot be a ground for reducing the pay of the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in Badri Prasad and others v. Union of India and others1 in support of his contentions. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S. Raju on instructions submits that the Petitioner was reverted to the post of ‘Office Subordinate’ vide Proceedings dated 29.06.2022 pursuant to the representation given by him without ‘Pay Protection’. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the Petitioner having accepted the reversion to the post of ‘Office Subordinate’ cannot seek for protection of pay, more so, after the retirement. 7. Heard the respective counsel. 1 (2005) 11 SCC 304 5 8. The Petitioner having regularly appointed as ‘Jeep Driver’ in a sanctioned post in the Commercial Tax Department is entitled for ‘Pay Protection’ even though he was appointed in the post of ‘Office Subordinate’ as he continues to have lien over the substantive post of ‘Driver’ as provided under Rule 12(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules. The appointment of the Petitioner as ‘Office Subordinate’ was on account of non-availability of posts of ‘Drivers’ in the Commercial Taxes Department at that relevant point of time and not on account of Petitioner’s volition and the lien of the Petitioner in the substantive post of ‘Driver’ continues till the same is suspended under F.R.14. 9. In this case, the lien of the Petitioner in the substantive post of ‘Driver’ was never suspended by the State under F.R.14 and therefore the Petitioner would be entitled for pay protection. 10. It is also to be noted that a similarly placed person by name Sri M. Siddaiah, who was reverted to the post of ‘Office Subordinate’, was permitted to retire as ‘Jeep Driver’ with pay protection. 6 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as the Petitioner is similarly placed person, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; i) The Respondents shall provide ‘Pay Protection’ to the Petitioner in the cadre of ‘Jeep Driver’ from the date of his conversion as ‘Office Subordinate’ i.e., on 29.06.2022; ii) The retirement benefits of the Petitioner shall be sanctioned as that of ‘Jeep Driver’ within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order; iii) No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 06.11.2025 eha 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27696/2025 Dt. 06.11.2025 eha