APHC010448212021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION Between: 1. K AJAYKUMAR, S/O KAMALANABHAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD. SUB.ASSISTANT AT PEDAPARUPUDI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GUDIVADP, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H. NO.L0/24- A/26, KAKATIYANAGAR, TEACHERS COLONY, .GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DLST. (ID.NO.OS06. 43396). 2. J.SAI BABU, S/O NARAYANA DAS, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD.SUB ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT AGRICULTURE, STATE SEED FARM, GHANTASLA, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H.NO.34 (ID.NO. 050-42352). 3. CH.KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O CH.VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RTD.FIELD ASST. AT THOTLALVALLURU, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H.NO.6 RESIDENCY, KATURU ROAD, GANDIGUNTA, VUY DIST.(ID.NO.OSOS0486). 4. V.DURGARAO, S/O VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, .SUB ASSISTANT AT IBRAHEEMPTANAM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MYLAVARAM, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H.NO.61-20-8, RAMALINGESWR NAGAR, V.M.RANGA ROAD, W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1466/2021 K AJAYKUMAR, S/O KAMALANABHAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD. SUB.ASSISTANT AT PEDAPARUPUDI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GUDIVADP, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H. A/26, KAKATIYANAGAR, TEACHERS COLONY, VADA, KRISHNA DLST. (ID.NO.OS06. 43396). J.SAI BABU, S/O NARAYANA DAS, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD.SUB ASSISTANT, ASSISTANT -DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, STATE SEED FARM, GHANTASLA, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H.NO.34- 81, BAPUJIPET, PAMARRU, KRISHNA DIST. 42352). CH.KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O CH.VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RTD.FIELD ASST. AT THOTLALVALLURU, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H.NO.6-126/41, FLAT NO.304, VIBAHA RESIDENCY, KATURU ROAD, GANDIGUNTA, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DIST.(ID.NO.OSOS0486). V.DURGARAO, S/O VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, .SUB ASSISTANT AT IBRAHEEMPTANAM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MYLAVARAM, KRISHNA DIST. R/O 8, RAMALINGESWR NAGAR, V.M.RANGA ROAD, RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1466/2021 K AJAYKUMAR, S/O KAMALANABHAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD. SUB.ASSISTANT AT PEDAPARUPUDI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GUDIVADP, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H. A/26, KAKATIYANAGAR, TEACHERS COLONY, J.SAI BABU, S/O NARAYANA DAS, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, STATE SEED FARM, GHANTASLA, KRISHNA 81, BAPUJIPET, PAMARRU, KRISHNA DIST. CH.KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O CH.VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RTD.FIELD ASST. AT THOTLALVALLURU, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIJAYAWADA, 126/41, FLAT NO.304, VIBAHA YURU, KRISHNA V.DURGARAO, S/O VENKATA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, .SUB ASSISTANT AT IBRAHEEMPTANAM, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MYLAVARAM, KRISHNA DIST. R/O 8, RAMALINGESWR NAGAR, V.M.RANGA ROAD, RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 2 KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST.(ID.NO.5000374). 5. B.VENKATA MALLIKARJUNA RAO, , S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RTD.FIELD ASSISTANT AT MOPIDEVI, 0/0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AVANIGADDA, KRISHSNA DIST R/O H.NO.12-221, CLUB BAZAR, RAMANAGRAM, CHALLAPALLI, KRISHNA DIST. (ID.NO.PS02-S0036). 6. V.KRISHNA RAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RTD.FIELD ASST. AT BANTUMILLI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, BANTUMILLI, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H. NO.1S/496, EDEPALLI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DIST. TID.NO.COS0444797). 7. K. RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RTD.FIELD ASST. AT AVANIGADDA, 0/.0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DIST. R/O HNOA/2-2, LAKSHMINAGAR COLONY, CHALLAPALLI, KRISHNA DIST (ID.NO.POS02S00S1). 8. CH.NANCHARAIAH, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD.SUB ASST. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DIST. R/O HNOA/2-2, LAKSHMINAGAR COLONY, CHALLAPALLI, KRISHNA DIST (10. NO. POS064339S). 9. V.NAGESWARA RAO, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD.SUB ASSISTANT AT VATSAVAL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, JAGGAIAHPETA, KRISHNA DIST.(JD.NO.43039). 10. E.BABU RAO, S/O SRI RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RTD.SUB ASSISTANT AT FRC, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. R/O D.NO.6-3, RCM CHURCH ROAD, EDUPUGALLU, KRISHNA DISTS. ID.NO.05042589). 11. LATE JAYESWARA RAO,, RTD.FIELD ASST AT MANDAVALLI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MANDAVALLI, KRISHNA DIST. R/O H.NO.21/520-52, ADARSHNAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DIST. REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR/WIFE SMT.G.MUNIKANYA. (PPO.NO.19-023171-SP). RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 3 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST . 2. THE DIRECRTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERENMENTE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DIST. 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, STATE FEED FARM, GHANTASAL, KRISHNA DIST. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. 7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, , MYLAVARAM, KRISHNA DIST. 8. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DIST. 9. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, BANTUMILLI, KRISHNA DIST. 10. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, JAGGAIAHPETA KRISHNA DIST. 11. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MANDAVLLI, KRISHNA DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): To call for the records relating to the impugned Memo.No.A5(1)444/2016 dt.Nil-07-2017 signed on 11-07- 2017 issued by the 2nd respondent whereby RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 4 depriving the legitimate benefit accrued vide G.O.Ms.No,420 FA dt.04.07.1978 for promotion as Sub Assistant Gr.I on the ground that they have been retired from service under the guise of Clarification No.despite the fact the non- consideration of their promotion is purely administrative lapse as is evident from L1r.Rc.No.A2/722/2013 dt.02.01.2015 of the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of Article 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution of India and quash the same in so far as the applicants are concerned and consequently declare that the applicants are entitled to be promoted as Sub Assistant-Gr.ll from the date of their eligibility on notional basis by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No,420 dt.04.07.1978 with all consequential benefits like revision of pay, revision of pension etc., IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to permit the applicants to file a common OA as the claim of all the applicants is similar and identical and are assailing the impugned Memo dated 11-7-2017 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M RAMGOPAL RAO 2. G RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 5 ORDER The grievance of the petitioners is that vide Memo No.A5(1)444/2016, dated Nil-07-2017 issued by respondent no.2 whereby they were deprived of their legitimate benefit of getting promotion as Sub Assistant Gr.I accrued vide G.O.Ms.No.420, FA,dated 04.07.1978 on the sole ground that they were retired from service. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they joined service as Sub Assistants and Field Assistants during the years 1974 to 1981 and later their services have been regularized after completion of minimum period of service as per the Rules and they were declared as approved probationers and they were confirmed as Members of the Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Subordinate Service in terms of Rule-21 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules. That the petitioners retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years during the years 2006 to 2013 as Sub Assistant Grade II and Field Assistant which was their initial appointment without getting any promotion though they are fully eligible and qualified and despite the fact of rendering nearly about 35 years of service. It is their further case that vide G.O.Ms.No.420, FA, dated 04.07.1978, the Government created an Intermediary Cadre between the Sub Assistants and Assistant Agriculture Officers viz., Sub Assistant-Gr.I, clarifying that the RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 6 existing Sub Assistants shall be treated as Sub Assistant Grade-II. That out of 460 Sub Assistant posts, Krishna District was allotted 18 Sub Assistant Posts and the Government framed adhoc Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.316 FA, dated 02.05.1979 for filling up of posts of Gr.I Sub Assistants and Rule-3 states that the appointment to the post of Gr.I Sub Assistants is by promotion from Sub Assistant Gr.II. Despite issuance of G.O.Ms.No.420, dated 04.07.1978 and G.O.Ms.No.326, dated 02.05.1979, the respondent nos.2 and 3 failed to discharge their obligation of promoting the applicants as Sub Assistant Grade- I and permitted them to retire in their initial appointment in violation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution. That the benefit of getting promotion was deferred under the guise of making correspondence. That the promotions to Sub Assistant Grade-I has to be effected from the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No.420 by which date the petitioners were in service. Therefore, though the petitioners retired from service without getting promotion solely due to the delay on the part of the authorities, the petitioners are entitled for getting notional benefits. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for petitioner nos.1,2,5, 7 to 9 & 11 and representing Sri M.Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for petitioner nos. 3,4,6 & 10, and Ms. C.Indrani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, for respondents. RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 7 4. Sri G.Ramana Rao, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that though the petitioners satisfy the eligibility and criteria for promotion, but were not considered for promotion and therefore, there is clear violation of fundamental right to be considered for promotion. He would further contend that the petitioners could not get promotion due to the lethargy, inaction and absence of sense of responsibility on the part of the authority in discharging statutory duty and hence the petitioners be declared as promoted as Sub Assistant-Grade I from the date of their eligibility on notional basis by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.420, dated 04.07.1978 with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on Union of India and another vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others1and Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others v. Brigadier Vikram Ahooja2. 5. Ms. C.Indrani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, on counter, contended that during the years 1979 and 2015 no promotions were taken up and in the year 2015 a clarification was given by the Director 1. (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 290 2. Order dated 04.04.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.423 of 2021 by Division Bench of High Court of Telangana RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 8 of Agriculture duly stating that Grade I promotions are to be implemented from the date of issue of orders to the individuals who are in service. She would further contend that by the date of getting clarification, the petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. That no employee does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself and the promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation and therefore, since the petitioners superannuated before the promotions were effectuated, they are not entitled for claiming promotions. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of her contention, she relied on the decision in Government of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & others3 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. No doubt, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.420, Food and Agriculture (Agri.V) Department, dated 04.07.1978, created an Intermediary Cadre between Sub Assistants and Assistant Agricultural Officers, known as Sub Assistants, clarifying that the existing Sub Assistants shall be designated as 3. Orders dated 27.11.2024 of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Diary No.43488/2023 RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 9 Sub Assistants Grade-II. As per G.O.Ms.No.316, dated 02.05.1979, promotion to the post of newly created intermediary post shall be made on the basis of seniority cum efficiency from the post of Sub Assistants Grade II. 8. The petitioners were superannuated by 31.07.2013. Admittedly, promotions to the post of Sub Assistant Gr.I were not taken up during the years 1978 to 2017. 9. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Union of India and another (supra 1) also the Hon’ble Supreme Court while accepting the argument that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis, however exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cautioning that in normal cases the relevant rule cannot be construed retrospectively, disposed of the case. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 10. In the decision in Government of West Bengal and others (supra 3) relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “21.While we recognize respondent No.1’s right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to be promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 10 promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent no.1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity.” 11. In the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question as to whether respondent no.1, who was recommended for the promotion before his retirement but did not receive actual promotion to the higher post due to administrative delays, is entitled to notional financial benefits of the promotional post after his retirement. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Judgments passed by the High Court and the Tribunal, whereby it was held that respondent no.1 though not entitled to retrospective promotion after his superannuation should be awarded notional financial benefits for the promotional post as of his retirement date, accepting the contention of the appellants that no financial benefits, even on a notional basis, are admissible to respondent no.1, who never assumed charge of the promotional post. 13. In the instant case there is no recommendation even for promotion, and therefore, no financial benefits even on a notional basis are admissible to the petitioners, since they never assumed the charge of the promotional post. RC,J W.P.(AT) No.1466 of 2021 11 14. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated 29th day of December, 2025. RR