% V IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) > WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY/^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5569 OF 2020 “^>1- PJi Between: 1. S.Swamy Sekhar, S/o Seeta Naik, Aged about 67 years, Occ.Retd ASIF Rio D.No.1/178-12,Hamriaiah colony, Guntakal town, Anantapur district. 2. P.Nabi Rasool, S/o P.Jaffar Saheb, Aged about 64 years Occ. Retd ASIPF Rio D.no. 10/386, Sundaracharula Street, Proddatur, Kadapa YSR District ...PETITIONERS AND 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways Rail Nilayam , Delhi, Rep by its Under Secretary. 2. The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Raisina Road Railway Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. The Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force South Central Railway, Rail Nelayam, Secunderabad Telangana 4. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force South Central Railways, Guntakal, Anantapur District 5. Divisional Finance Manager (Accounts), Guntakal Division, South Central Railways, Guntakal, Anantapur 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not granting 2 increments to the Petitioners as per the Vth Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendation only on the ground that the petitioners were promoted as Head Constables prior to 1-1-1996 more so in the light of the proceedings No.PC-V/504 No.PC-V/2003/1/6/2 illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and against statutory provisions and Consequently direct the Respondents to grant 2 increments Petitioners with retrospective effect dt.4-2-2010 as to the as per the Vth Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendation and also in the light of the proceedings No.PC-V/504 No.PC-V/2003/1/6/2 dt.4-2-2010 further direction to dispose off the petitioners' representation dt.25-1-2019. and with lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the Respondents to dispose off the petitioners' representation dt.25-1-2019 pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI L. J. VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010091312020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable dr justice k manmadha WRIT PETITION NO: 5569/2020 [3310] RAO Between: S.swamy Sekhar and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Union Of India and Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Pasala Ponna Rao,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) OF INDIA The Writ Petition seeking the following relief; is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India SSg=ls=S-S No.PC-V/504 No.PC-V/2003/1/6/2 m 2nin 2 the light of the proceedings No.PC-V/504 No.PC-V/2003/1/6/2 dt.4.2.2010 and with further direction to dispose of the petitioners’ representation dt.25.1.2019 and pass such other order or orders. ” 2. Heard Mr.L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Pasala Ponna Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents. appearing 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contentions which are urged in the writ petition. reiterated the 4. The right of filing counter by the respondents is forfeited under Clause 12 of Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in P.D.Devassia v. Union of lndia\ wherein the High Court of Kerala held at para No.5, which reads as under: “5. The question is whether in spite of the fact that the respondents have correctly understood that there is an anomaly, the refusal to redress the grievance of the petitioner is justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice Note 9 of Rule 7 of Vth Pay Commission Acceptance Orders for Railway Employees, 1997 which is extracted beiow: “Note 9 - In cases, where a Senior Railway servant promoted to a higher post before the day of January, 1996 draws less in the revised scale than his Junior who is promoted to the higher post onor after the day of January, 1996, the pay of the senior Railway servant should be stepped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for his Junior in that higher post. The stepping up pay ^ LAWS (SC)-1997-8-73 ■■■ 3 should be done with effect from the date of promotion of the Junior Railway servant subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:- (a) both the junior and the senior Railway servants should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre. (b) the pre-revised and revised scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. (c) the senior Railway servants at the time of promotion have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior. (d) the anomaiy shouid be directly as a result of the application of the provisions of Rule 1313 (FR 22) of Indian Railway Establishment Code Voiume II or any other rule or order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised scale. If even in the lower post, the junior officer ivas drawing more pay in the pre-revised scaie than the senior by virtue of the advance increments granted to him, provision of this Note need not be invoked to step up the pay of the senior officer. ” A reading of the above Note will show that if the conditions prescribed therein are satisfied, the stepping up of pay shail be aliowed with effect from the date of promotion of the junior Railway servant. It is submitted that in the case of the petitioner, ali the conditions have been satisfied and therefore what is expected of is to rectify the anomaly. It is evident that the said Note9 under Rule 7 of the Vth Pay Commission Acceptance Orders for Railway Employees, 1997 has not been considered by the Raiiway Board and they were merely guided by the opinion of the OOP & T, as evidenced by Ext.RI(a). In that view of the matter, the entire issue needs a re-examination at the hands of the Raiiway Board. ” 4 6. By following the above judgment and since the representation is also pending before the respondent authorities i.e. Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 3'"'^ respondent to dispose of the representation dated 25.01.2019 in the light of the proceedings issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways vide No.PC-V/2003/l/6/2, dated 04.02.2010 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To. 1. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Union of India, Rail Nilayam , Delhi. The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Raisina Road Railway Bhavan, New Delhi. The Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force South Central Railway, Rail Nelayam, Secunderabad Telangana Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force South Central Railways, Guntakal, Anantapur District Divisional Finance Manager (Accounts), Guntakal Division,South Central Railways Guntakal, Anantapur District One CC to Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, Advocate [OPUCl 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ( 7. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri T. Sreedhar, Central Govt. Counsel[OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies. ssb 1' HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.5569 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS