APHC010056592017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 WRIT PETITION NO: 18332/2017 Between: 1. M.CHIRANJEEVI,, S/O IT.PAPAIAH, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, DOOR NO:2-5-156, ILLISPURAM STREET, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER SRIKAKULAM A P, - 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, A & E, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 6. N JAGANNADHARAO, S/O PURUSHOTTAMRAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT UNIT), DOOR NO:8-181, SBI COLONY, BONDILIPURAM, 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 SRIKAKULAM TOWN, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice, dated 27.5.2017 issued by. the 3rd respondent-1st Addl District Judge directing the petitioner to remit the amount in lumpsum drawn in terms of G.O.Ms.No:50 Law (LA & J)-Home Courts-D), Department, dated 23.4.2009 and G.O.Ms.No:100 Law (LA &J) Home Courts-D) Department, dated 8.8.2013 while returning the Pension papers of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, unjustifiable and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of true letter and spirit of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No:100, Law (LA & J- Home-Courts.D) Department, dated 8.8.2013 and F.R.27 of the Fundamental Rules and consequently, to set aside the Notice, dated 27.5.20017 while directing the 2nd respondent to forward the revised pension papers of the petitioner to the Accountant General and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 22375 OF 2017 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 grant interim suspension of the notice, dated 27.5.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 26698 OF 2017 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 permit the petitioner to file the following additional material papers: 1.Proceedings of the 5th respondent pertaining to the 6th respondent. 2.Proceedings of the 5th respondent pertaining to Sri Ch.Jaggarao, Retired Senior Superintendent. in support of the case in the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/Writ petitioner to file the reply 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 affidavit to the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G U R C PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V HIMABINDU 2. V UMA DEVI (SC FOR HC TAP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 18469/2017 Between: 1. U.V.G.KANTHARAO,, S/O.LT.U.V.SATYANARAYANA, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, QUARTER NO:LIG I 165, A.P.H.B.COLDNY, NEAR Z.P. SRIKAKULAM TOWN STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT, HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE SRIKAKULAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SRIKAKULAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER SRIKAKULAM A P, - 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A E, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. . 6. N JAGANNADHARAO, S/O PURUSHOTTAMRAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT UNIT), DOOR NO:8-181, SBI COLONY,.BONDILIPURAM, 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 SRIKAKULAM TOWN, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice, dated 27.5.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent-1St Addl District Judge directing the petitioner to remit the amount in lumpsum drawn in terms of G.O.Ms.No:50 Law (LA & J)-Home Courts-D), Department, dated 23.4.2009 and G.O.Ms.No:100 Law (LA &J) Home Courts-D) Department, dated 8.8.2013 while returning the Pension papers of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, unjustifiable and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of The Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of true letter and spirit of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No:100, Law, (LA & J- Home-Courts.D) Department, dated 8.8.2013 and F.R.27 of the Fundamental Rules and consequently, to set aside the Notice, dated 27.5.20017 while directing the 2nd respondent to forward the revised pension papers of the petitioner to the Accountant General IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 22539 OF 2017 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 grant interim suspension of the notice, dated 27.5.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 26700 OF 2017 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 permit the petitioner to file the following additional material papers: 1.Proceedings of the 5th respondent pertaining to 6th respondent. 2.Proceedings of the 5th respondent pertaining to Sri Ch.Jaggarao, Retired Senior Superintendent. in support of the case in the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G U R C PRASAD 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V HIMABINDU 2. V UMA DEVI (SC FOR HC TAP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 18486/2017 Between: 1. V.VENKATESWARLU,, S/O LT.SATYANARAYANA, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, (DISTRICT COURT, SRIKAKULAM) AGED, ABOUT 73 YEARS, GOLLA STREET, HAYATHINAGARAM, NEAR VARAM GUEST HOUSE, GUJARATHIPETA., SRIKAKULAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM, A.P. 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, A & E, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 6. N JAGANNADHARAO, S/O PURUSHOTTAMRAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT UNIT), DOOR NO:8-181, SBI COLONY, BONDILIPURAM, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 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 toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice, dated 27.5.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent-1st Addl District Judge directing the petitioner to remit the amount in lumpsum drawn in terms of G.O.Ms.No:50 Law (LA & J)-Home Courts-D), Department, dated 23.4.2009 and G.O.MS.No:100 Law (LA &J) Home Courts-D) Department, dated 8.8.2013 while returning the Pension papers of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, unjustifiable and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of true letter and spirit of the Government order in G,O.Ms.No:100, Law (LA & J- Home-Courts.D) Department, dated 8.8.2013 and F.R.27 of the, Fundamental Rules and consequently, to set aside the Notice, dated 27.5.20017 while directing the 2nd respondent to forward the revised pension papers of the. petitioner to the Accountant General IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 22556 OF 2017 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 grant interim suspension of the notice, dated 27.5.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 26468 OF 2017 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 permit the petitioner to file the following additional material papers: 1.Proceedings of the 5th respondent pertaining to the 6th respondent. 2.Proceedings of the 5th respondent pertaining to Sri Ch.Jaggarao, Retired Senior Superintendent. in support of the case in the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/Writ petitioner to file the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent in the above writ petition and pass 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G U R C PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 8 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As these three (03) Writ Petitions arise out of the same issue, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 2. These Writ Petitions are being filed by three separate persons, who had retired as Superintendents in the District Judiciary. The details of their dates of joining and retirement as Senior Superintendents in Srikakulam District, are given herein below: Writ Petition No. Name of the petitioner Initial Date of Joining Date of Promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent Date of Retirement 18332 of 2017 Sri M. Chiranjeevi 14.11.1966 01.04.2003 28.02.2005 18469 of 2017 Sri U.V.G. Kantha Rao 09.11.1966 02.03.2005 30.06.2006 18486 of 2017 Sri V. Venkateswarlu 22.12.1969 01.04.2003 30.06.2003 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India, in W.P.No.1022 of 1989, decided on 13.11.1991, had constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission and to examine the service conditions and salary structure of employees of 9 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 Sub-ordinate Courts. The Judicial Pay Commission, headed by a Former Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had made certain recommendations in respect of each State, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. As part of implementing these recommendations, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 23.04.2009 as well as G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 08.08.2013. In G.O.Ms.No.100, the earlier post of Superintendent, under the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, including the posts of Head Clerk District Court, Additional District Courts, Sheristedars of Sub-Courts and Central Nazir of District Court were re-designated as senior superintendents. These re-designations came into effect from 01.04.2003. The scale of pay for the various posts available in the Judicial Ministerial Services was fixed, under G.O.Ms.No.50, with effect from 01.04.2003. 4. Pursuant to these Government Orders, the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, had issued proceedings, dated 01.02.2016, setting out the names of the employees, who would stand promoted as Senior Superintendents, along with the date of promotion. The names of the petitioners are annexed at Serial Nos.5, 6 & 11 respectively. Thereafter, the proposals were sent for grant of an additional increment as well as fixation of pay scales were submitted to the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam. However, all these proposals were rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, by way of separate endorsements, dated 07.04.2017, in W.P.Nos.18332 & 18486 of 2017 and dated 10.04.2017, in W.P.No.18469 of 10 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 2017. The endorsement in W.P.No.18332 of 2017, which is illustrative, is set out below: “As seen from the Service Register of the individual he was promoted from the post of Cat.III to Cat.II w.e.f. 01.12.98 and his pay was already fixed in the promotion post, hence he is not entitled to claim any benefits interms of G.O.M.S.No.100, Law (LA & J-Home Courts-D Department, dt.08.08.2013.” 5. This endorsement essentially states that, all the three Writ Petitioners were already in the pay scale of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,600/-, which was the pay scale fixed for Senior Superintendents, under G.O.Ms.No.50 and consequently, they would not be entitled to any revision in this pay scale. It appears that, the petitioners had already been granted one additional increment, in view of the directions in G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 23.04.2009. This increment was withdrawn and steps were initiated for recovery of the payments made, on account of the said increment. These proceedings are dated 15.04.2017 & 27.05.2017. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the withdrawal of the additional increment as well as the steps taken for recovery of the additional amounts paid to the petitioners, under this increment, have approached this Court, by way of the present set of Writ Petitions. 7. Sri G. U. R. C. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that, the writ petitioners are entitled for grant of an additional increment in view of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.50. He would also contend 11 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 that, all the other persons enumerated as Senior Superintendents, had also been granted additional increment, but no steps were taken to withdraw such additional increment, in relation to those persons. 8. Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, would contend that, the purpose for grant of an additional increment under G.O.Ms.No.50, was for the purposes of ensuring that all the persons working as Senior Superintendents are brought into the pay scale of Rs.5,000 to Rs.10,600/-. He would submit that, as the petitioners were already in the said scale, there was no necessity to grant an additional increment to the petitioners. 9. Sri P. S. P. Suresh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel, would also contend that, the grant of an increment, when the petitioners were already in the same scale, would result in an increment being granted over and above the entitlement of the petitioners. 10. The grant of additional increment under G.O.Ms.No.50 is set out in Note-i of Rule 5, of G.O.Ms.No.50. Note-ii is also relevant. Note i & ii read as follows: „i). One increment at the initial rate of scales shall be added to the holders of the categories as mentioned above other than Chief Administrative Officers, Bailiffs and Process Servers who had been assigned higher pay scales. If the employees pay after adding this initial increment do not find a stage in the scale at this point of time be allowed to next higher stage in the same scale. 12 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 ii). This benefit of one increment at the initial rate shall also be provided to new entrants to the service and employees who have reached stagnation.” 11. Note-i consists of two sentences. The first sentence simply states that, every holder of a post, in the categories enumerated, in G.O.Ms.No.50, are to be given one increment at the initial rate of scale, except the posts mentioned in the first sentence. The second sentence states that, if the pay of the employee, does not find a stage in the scale, after the grant of one increment, the said employee would be allowed to move to the next higher stage in the same scale. 12. This Court would understand the second sentence in the following manner: The scale of pay provided for Senior Superintendents is Rs.5000/- to 10,600/-. The increment in this scale of pay is to be @ Rs.150/- till the stage of Rs.5300/- is reached. Thereafter, the increment is at Rs.170/- till the stage of Rs.6150/- is reached. Thereafter, the increment is at Rs.200/- till the stage of Rs.7150/- is reached, and so on. In a case, where a person, who is to be put in this scale of pay, was already receiving Rs.5100/- as pay, he would be given an increment of Rs.150/-. This would take his pay to Rs.5250/-. In such a circumstance, the employee would not be in the proper scale of pay, as his pay should be either Rs.5,150/- or Rs.5,300/-, which would be the next higher stage in the same scale. In such a situation, the pay of this employee, for 13 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 purposes of regularization would not be fixed at the lower stage of Rs.5150/- but would be fixed at the higher stage of Rs.5,300/-. 13. Note-ii also provides the benefit of one increment, at the initial rate for new entrants to the service and employees, who have reached stagnation. This condition is clearly without any stipulation of whether the said employee is already in the same band or is in a band, which is lower than the new band. 14. In view of the aforesaid understanding, it would have to be held that, the petitioners are entitled to one increment even if they were already in the pay band i.e., Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,600/-. 15. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed, with the directions to the Authorities to take all necessary consequential steps, for revising the pay scale, and consequential pensionary amounts and for payment of the additional amounts to the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:03.02.2026 KPV 14 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 232 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION Nos.18332, 18469 & 18486 of 2017 (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 03.02.2026 KPV