1 APHC010624762011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10132/2011 Between: 1. MR.KOLLA VENKAT RAO,AMEERPET,HYDERABAD, S/O. SUBBAIAH, RTD. TTI, E.84893, R/O. # 8-3-635/1, YELLAREDDYGUDA, AMEERPET HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSRTC GUNTUR REGION ANOTHER, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUNTUR REGION, GUNTUR 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, MACHERLA DEPOT, MACHERLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...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 topleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- i. declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings vide No P3/488 (1)/09-MCL, dt.30-04-2010 and inaction of the inaction of the respondents in not paying 1/5th of petitioners basic DA for discharging the duties of superior officer i.e. Stores Supervisor as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, unfair labour practice, colorable exercise of powers, opposed to doctrine of legitimate expectation besides violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and ii. consequently, set aside the same and also direct the respondents to pay the recovered amount in pursuance of the proceedings dt.30-04-2010 of the 2nd respondent 2 besides directing the respondents to pay 1/5th of petitioners basic DA for discharging the duties of superior officer i.e. Stores Supervisor with an interest of 24 per cent per annum and also direct the respondent corporation to pay the costs of this proceedings and pass such other order or orders or directions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of case and to meet the ends of justice. Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 18.07.2025 vide IA No.1 of 2015 (WPMP No.53782 of 2015) in WP No.10132 of 2011. IA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 12479 OF 2011 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 consider petitioner case for payment 1/5th of petitioner basic + DA for discharging the duties of superior officers i.e. stores supervisor and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 53782 OF 2015 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 Issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus - i. declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings vide No:P3/488 (1)/09-MCL, dt. 30.04.2010 and inaction of the inaction of the respondents in not paying 1/5th of petitioner's basic + DA for discharging the duties of superior officer i.e. Stores Supervisor as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, unfair labour pratice, colorable exercise of powers, opposed to 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and ii. consequently, set aside the same and also direct the respondents to pay the recovered amount inpursuance of the proceedings dt. 30.04.2010 of the 2nd respondent besides directing the respondents to pay 1/5th of petitioner's basic + DA for discharging the duties of superior officer i.e. Stores Superviosr with an interest of 24% per cent per annum and also direct the respondent corporation to pay the costs of this proceedings; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10132 of 2011 ORDER: 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the recovery proceeding dated 30.04.2010 and the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying 1/5th of the petitioner’s basic pay along with Dearness Allowance (DA) for having discharged the duties of Stores Supervisor. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor and thereafter promoted as Controller and subsequently as Depot Clerk. Though the petitioner did not possess the requisite technical qualifications, he was directed by the respondent authority to supervise the stores, and with effect from 20.07.2008, the petitioner was assigned with the duties of Stores Supervisor (Materials) at Macherla Depot. During the said period, certain shortages and excesses in the quantity of materials were noticed by the Depot Manager, Macherla and holding the petitioner responsible for the said discrepancies, the respondent authorities proposed recovery of an amount of Rs.11.410/- from the salary of the petitioner in two instalments, vide proceedings dated 30.04.2010. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never sought nor aspired to work as Stores Supervisor and that it was the choice of the respondent authorities. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no technical knowledge relating to the materials stored. Upon 4 issuance of a show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation with regard to lack of technical knowledge and specifically stating that no list of materials was handed over to him at the time of assuming charge. As such, the petitioner cannot be personally held responsible for the discrepancies noticed during inspection. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having discharged the role of a Stores Supervisor, is entitled to payment of 1/5th of the petitioner’s basic pay along with Dearness Allowance (DA), which is payable to employees discharging the said supervisory functions. 5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Corporation submits that no proceeding were ever issued entitling the petitioner to claim payment of 1/5th of the petitioner’s basic pay along with Dearness Allowance (DA) and the petitioner was only entrusted with the additional duties of Stores Supervisor as an interim arrangement due to shortage of staff, and such temporary entrustment does not confer any legal right to claim higher pay or allowances. 6. It is further submitted that the penalty amount of Rs.11,410/- was duly recovered from the terminal benefits of the petitioner and that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2010. In the absence of any official proceeding entitling the petitioner to claim the 1/5th of the petitioner’s basic pay along with Dearness Allowance (DA) in addition to his salary and perks for discharging the duties of Superior Officer i.e., Stores Supervisor cannot be considered by this Court. 5 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not specified the exact date on which he was entrusted with the role of Store Supervisor, nor has he indicated the period for which he officiated as Stores Supervisor. That apart, no proceedings have been placed before this Court whereby, the respondent authority has entitled the petitioner for a higher scale for having discharged the higher responsibility. In the absence of any such proceedings which entitles the petitioner to claim the 1/5th of basic pay along with Dearness Allowance (DA) for the period of service of the petitioner as Stores Supervisor, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 9. On these considerations, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:20.01.2026 NKA 6 20 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10132 of 2011 Date: 20.01.2026 NKA