1 APHC010499532024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 25833/2024 Between: 1. M VIJAYA RAJU, S/O FRANCIS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS, AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI NARASIHA ERANNA SWAMIVARI DEVASTHANAM, URUKUNDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (ENDOWMENT) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDNRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the increments due to the petitioner from the years 2017 on the ground that an ACB case is pending against him as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in violation of FR 24 and also in 2 violation of law laid down by this Honble Court, and consequently direct the Respondents to release the increments to the petitioner w.e.f November 2017 in the light of the law laid down by this Honble Court in W.P.No.4553/2021 dated 24-2-2021, forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 consider the representations of the petitioner dated 14-12- 2021 (Computer No.5312957 and dated 15-10- 2024 vide comp.No.9503181 for releasing increments w.e.f., November 2017 in the light of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court dated 24- 2-2021 in W.P.No 4553/2021 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not releasing the increments from the year 2017 on the ground that ACB case is pending against him as highly illegal arbitrary unjust violative the provisions of Fundamental Rules contrary to orders of the Honble Court and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the 3 Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the increments from the year 2017”. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Endowment Department on 27.11.1990 and subsequently the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent. Thereafter on 30.12.2010, the petitioner was again promoted as Gazetted Superintendent in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner in the Department. While things stood thus, a crime was registered by the ACB against the petitioner vide Crime No.12/RCA-CIU- ACB/2017 under Section 13(1)(e) R/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for having disproportionate assets from known sources. The petitioner was placed under suspense pending contemplation of disciplinary proceedings dated 15.11.2017. 3. While so, it is contended that, without any jurisdiction, the respondent authorities stopped the annual increments and not releasing the annual grade increments on the ground that ACB case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 14.12.2021 with a request to release the annual grade increments due on November, 2017, November, 2018, November, 2019 in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.4553 of 2021 on 24.02.2021. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner submitted several representations since long time and no purpose was served, thus the action of the respondents in not releasing the 4 increments from the year 2017 as highly illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as stated above. 5. During hearing, Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Regional Deputy Director of Town Country Planning v. Sri Markonda Patnaikuni Janardhana Rao1 (to which I am one of the member) and requested to issue a direction in the same lines. 6. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services-II and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5/Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Vijayawada opposed the writ petition on the ground that ACB case is pending against this petitioner, and thereby, denial of increments during pendency of ACB case is not an illegality and requested to pass appropriate orders. As seen from the material on record, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service by the respondent-authorities. Thus, as on the date, ACB case is pending. Now, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim service benefits like increments for the period of suspension. According to F.R.24 of the A.P. Fundamental Rules, 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 1 W.P.No.15509 of 2009 dated 16.04.2015 5 State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not been good, or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering withholding of an increment by the authority, it shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. Therefore, stoppage of increments or withholding of increments can be done by the State Government or authority to whom such power is delegated by the State Government in terms of F.R.24. But, no such order was passed till date for withholding the increments, exercising power under F.R.24. An increment may however be withheld as a measure of punishment after completion of departmental enquiry, if any, initiated, but not before conducing any enquiry. The contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted for the reason that, mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings without imposing any punishment by an order of the Government, exercising power under F.R 24 withholding an increment is illegal and the contention cannot be accepted. Similar question came up before the Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Gopala Rao2, wherein the Division Bench issued direction to release the increments holding that the petitioner therein is entitled to claim service benefits. In The Regional Deputy Director of Town Country Planning v. Sri Markonda Patnaikuni Janardhana Rao (referred supra) (to which I am one of the member), the Division Bench of this Court considered by another 2 W.P.No.6617 of 2014 dated 04.11.2004 6 Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Gopala Rao (referred supra) and observed as follows: “The law declared by the Division Bench, in its order in W.P.No.661 of 2004 dated 04.11.2004, is that withholding of 2 increments is also a measure punishment; and increments can only be withheld by following the process prescribed, for imposing penalties, under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is not in dispute that such proceedings have been instituted against the respondent-applicant.” 7. Thus, viewed from any angle, when there is no order from the Government or by any authority to whom power is delegated to withhold the increments in terms of F.R.24, withholding of increments is an illegality and contrary to F.R.24. Hence, by applying the principles laid down in the above judgments, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner is entitled to claim service benefits like release of increments etc. 8. In Mritunjai Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh3, a question came up for consideration as to whether the employee during suspension period was entitled to claim service benefits, including increments. The Court concluded that, increments falling due during suspension should be added granted to him and subsistence allowance should be calculated accordingly. Therefore, simply because an employee is under suspension pending enquiry increments cannot be denied to him and also increments can be withheld only by a specific order of 3 1971(2) SLR 523 7 the Government. When there is no such specific order for withholding of increments or postponement of increments cannot be denied even during the period of suspension. By applying the principles laid down in the above judgment, I hold that, action of the respondents in not releasing the increments during suspension period is illegal and contrary to F.R. 24 and the same is liable to be declared as illegal without any hesitation. 9. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the increments from the year 2017 to 2020 forthwith. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _____________ D. RAMESH,J Date:11.03.2026 Gk. 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH 36 WRIT PETITION No.25833 OF 2024 Date:11.03.2026 Gk