APHC010702602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 36534/2025 Between: A Mohan ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.36534 of 2025 O R DE R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not releasing the annual grade increments due to the Petitioner for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Regional Transport Officer in the year 1990. Thereafter, the Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 29.04.2016 in connection with an ACB case registered for disproportionate assets in Cr. No.06/RCA/CIU/2016, dated 27.04.2016 for the offenses punishable under Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 25.09.2018, the suspension of the Petitioner was revoked vide G.O.Rt.No.433 TR & B Department, dated 25.09.2018, and now he is working as Joint Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that the Petitioner was not paid annual grade increments during the period of suspension i.e., 2016, 2017, 3 2018 and 2019 even though representation was given to that effect to the Respondent Authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6617 of 2004 and similar judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No. 9228 of 2021, 4553 of 2021, and 18004 of 2022. This Court in similar circumstances had directed the Respondent Authorities to sanction the annual grade increments after referring to the provisions of F.R.24. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Representation of the Petitioner for the purpose as sought would be considered by the Respondent authorities and an appropriate decision would be taken. 6. Heard both the counsel. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6617 of 2004, dated 04.11.2004, was considering the case of an individual seeking subsistence allowance after factoring in the annual grade increments. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had directed that the subsisting allowance be paid 4 after taking into account the annual increments. In the Writ Petition filed by the State, the Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the provisions of FR 24, held that unless an order of withholding increments is passed, the same cannot be withheld. The paragraphs Nos. 5, 6, and 7 thereof are extracted below: “It is contended by the Petitioners that in view of the provisions of F.R.24, as the Respondent has not been in active service, there is no method by which his conduct in service be judged. Therefore, he is not entitled to any incremental benefits. In view of the provisions of F.R.24: “ F.R.24. An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a Government Servant by (the State Government), or by any authority to whom the State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment the withholding of an increment the withholding authority shall state the period of which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments”. It is apparent from the rule that an increment shall be drawable by an employee as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may however be withheld on proof of a Government Servant’s unsatisfactory or bad conduct. However, that an order withholding increments shall state the 5 period from which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have effect of postponing future increments. In any event, an order of withholding of increments constitutes a penalty and requires following the due procedure under the provisions of A.P.C.S. Rules, 1991. It is not the case of the Petitioners that any such procedure was followed or an order withholding the increments of the respondent was passed. In the above circumstances, the assumption of the Petitioners that the respondent is not entitled to the incremental benefits is misconception. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference in this Writ Petition”. The said principle was followed in series of judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos 9228 of 2021, 4553 of 2021, and 18004 of 2022. 8. In that view, the present Writ Petition is allowed declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the annual grade increments for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 as illegal, and consequently, the Respondents are directed to release the annual grade increments due to the Petitioner for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 within a period of One (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 31.12.2025 eha 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 36534/2025 Dt. 31.12.2025 eha