Date of reserved for orders :13.07.2026 Date of pronouncement :29.07.2026 Date of uploading : 03.08.2026 * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI +W.P.NO.5394 OF 2023 % 29.07.2026 #Between: Kolli Rajagopala Rao ...Petitioner $And: The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ! Counsel for the Petitioner: ARUN SHOWRI G ^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (1975) 3 SCC 1 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** +W.P.NO. 5394 OF 2023 Kolli Rajagopala Rao ...Petitioner $And: The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 5394 of 2023 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: …to issue any appropriate Writ, order or Direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing proceedings in SE/IC/GNT/AB/EC-3/389M dated 22-05-2020 and Proceedings No.SE/IC/GNT/ AB/EC- 3/405M dated 27-05-2020 fixing the basic pay of the Petitioner as on his date of retirement on 30.06.2002 AM at Rs.14,950 plus 12 FPI in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and Rs.15475 plus 12 FPI in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer after notional promotion instead of the actual basic pay of the Petitioner at Rs.16000 plus 12 FPI in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and Rs.16,525 plus 12FPI in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India… 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the Irrigation Department as Draughtsman Grade III on 24.07.1963 and, through successive promotions and pay revisions, retired as Assistant Engineer on 30.06.2002 with a basic pay of Rs.15,475/-. Pension was sanctioned accordingly. Subsequently, vide proceedings, dated 25.04.2018, the Petitioner was granted notional promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from 11.03.1971 and later as Deputy Executive Engineer, vide proceedings, dated 30.07.2019 with effect from 20.01.1984. Pursuant to the above said notional promotion as Assistant Engineer, Respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 20.09.2018 revising the Petitioner's pay from the date of notional promotion, fixing his basic pay at Rs.16,000/- as on 30.06.2002, as 4 such, arrears of Rs.76,308/- were sanctioned and paid after treasury audit, and revised pension proposals were forwarded to the competent authorities. 3. However, while processing the subsequent notional promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer, Respondent No.2 raised objections, and Respondent No.3, without issuing any notice or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, revised the earlier pay fixation through the impugned proceedings dated 22.05.2020 and 27.05.2020, reducing the Petitioner's pay and denying the benefit of earlier pay fixation and stepping-up granted on par with his junior. The Petitioner submitted several representations supported by detailed comparative pay fixation statements and relevant records, requesting restoration of the correct pay fixation and issuance of a reasoned order. Despite repeated representations, the Respondents neither granted personal hearing nor passed any speaking order, but continued to justify the impugned fixation. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The respondents filed counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner joined service as Draughtsman Grade-III on 24.07.1963, was promoted as Draughtsman Grade-II on 24.12.1969, promoted as Supervisor/Assistant Engineer on 23.12.1976, and retired on 30.06.2002. By proceedings dated 25.04.2018, the petitioner was granted notional promotion as Assistant Engineer with effect from 11.03.1971, the date on which he acquired the prescribed qualification (LCE). The petitioner’s pay was initially fixed pursuant 5 to the notional promotion by proceedings dated 20.09.2018. While processing the revised pension proposals, the Engineer-in-Chief found certain errors in the earlier pay fixation and, by Memo dated 06.12.2019, directed reconsideration in accordance with the Fundamental Rules. Accordingly, the earlier pay fixation was revised by Proceedings dated 22.05.2020, and the petitioner's pay in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer was fixed by Proceedings dated 27.05.2020 after his notional promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 20.01.1984. Since the petitioner stood notionally promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 11.03.1971, his initial pay had to be fixed under FR 22(a)(i) with reference to the substantive pay actually drawn on that date (Rs.170/- in Draughtsman Grade-II). The Selection Grade granted in the lower cadre on 05.01.1972 could not be taken into account after his notional promotion to the higher post from 11.03.1971. Once the petitioner entered the higher cadre, subsequent benefits in the lower cadre could not regulate his pay in the promotional post. The earlier stepping- up of pay with reference to junior Sri M. Bapanaiah ceased to be admissible because, by virtue of the petitioner's notional promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 20.01.1984, both officers were no longer in the same cadre on 22.04.1985. The Engineer-in-Chief clarified this position in Memo dated 24.07.2020. The earlier grant of SPP-II on completion of 22 years was inconsistent with the revised Automatic Advancement Scheme introduced under the relevant Government Orders. The error was rectified by granting the admissible benefit under the revised scheme. The revised pay fixation was 6 carried out strictly in accordance with the Fundamental Rules and applicable Government Orders. The petitioner's last pay at the time of retirement remained Rs.15,475/- + FPP, and there was no reduction in pay or pension. Consequently, the petitioner suffered no financial prejudice. The competent authority has the power to correct an erroneous pay fixation to bring it in conformity with the Fundamental Rules. Notional promotion does not entitle an employee to retain benefits arising from a lower cadre after promotion. Stepping-up of pay is permissible only when the senior and junior are in the same cadre and satisfy the conditions prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.297 dated 25.10.1983. The impugned proceedings are statutory corrections of an erroneous fixation and do not violate Articles 14, 16, 19, or 21 of the Constitution. The proceedings dated 22.05.2020 and 27.05.2020 were issued after rectifying the defects pointed out by the Engineer-in-Chief and are in accordance with the Fundamental Rules and applicable Government Orders. As the petitioner's pay and pension were not reduced, and the revised fixation only corrected the earlier erroneous fixation, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings were issued behind the back of the petitioner without any notice or opportunity for hearing which is in violation of principles 7 of natural justice. It is contended that once pay is fixed and confirmed, the same cannot be reduced without affording an opportunity of hearing, and placed reliance on the judgment reported in Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapur Vs Shri L.N.Keshri 1. It is further contended that petitioner's pay was stepped up with effect from 22.04.1985 on par with his junior, and the same cannot be denied on the ground that such stepping up would become inapplicable as he was promoted notionally to the Deputy Executive Engineer on 20.01.1984. As such, the denying of stepped up pay cannot be accepted. It is also contended that the petitioner was also denied the Selection Grade post in Draughtsman Grade-III vide proceedings dated 10.06.1983 on the ground that his promotion as Assistant Engineer was advanced from 23.12.1976 to 11.03.1971, and therefore, his claim for Selection Grade in Draughtsman Grade-III cannot be considered. The said reasoning is both factually incorrect and legally untenable. The Petitioner was actually drawing Rs.260/- in the post of Draftsman Grade II (substantive vacancy) and had also been appointed to the Selection Grade Draftsman III with effect from 05.01.1972. Both of which are factual events from over 48 years ago and that cannot be undone in 2020. As per FR 22, no person can be paid anything less than substantive pay at any time as a result of fixation of pay in a new scale. The said payments made were audited and approved. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner was notionally promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 20.01.1984, and that his junior, Sri 1 (1975) 3 SCC 1 8 M. Bapanaiah, joined as Assistant Engineer only on 22.04.1985, and therefore both were in different cadres, cannot be accepted. The flaw in such reasoning is that the notional promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer was ordered only in the year 2019 vide proceedings dated 30.07.2019, i.e., long after the petitioner’s retirement. Whereas, the stepping-up of pay in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was an actual factual event that took place in the year 1985, and was subsequently formalized by the Engineer-in-Chief vide proceedings dated 24.03.1999 under G.O.Ms.No.297, dated 25.10.1983. Petitioner was actually in service in the cadre of Assistant Engineer and was drawing Rs.1,200/- per month with effect from 22.04.1985. The retrospective notional promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer cannot take away the pay actually drawn by the petitioner. Once pay is fixed under FR 27, it creates a vested right and the Government cannot alter the fixation already made. The attempt to apply notional promotions to nullify actual benefits already accrued is impermissible. As per FR 22, a Government servant promoted to a higher post must receive a pay higher than what he was drawing in the cadre from which he promoted. In the present case, the impugned fixation in the cadre of Assistant Engineer is lower than the pay actually drawn by the petitioner at the time of retirement, i.e., Rs.15,475/-. The object of the Automatic Advancement Scheme is to advance the pay of an employee and not to reduce the same. The contention of the respondents that the pay in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer was fixed at Rs.15,475 + 12 FPA, i.e., the same as that of Assistant Engineer, and therefore there was 9 no reduction, cannot be accepted. The pay before and after promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer remains the same, which is impermissible, as a promotional post must necessarily carry higher pay than the lower post. Thus, the erroneous fixation of pay in the cadre of Assistant Engineer has resulted in a cascading effect on the subsequent promotional cadre also. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Fundamental Rules, particularly, FR 22 Note 3, which stipulates that the pay drawn by a Government servant in an officiating post is deemed as substantive pay for the purpose of fixation of pay on appointment to a higher post. The pay drawn in the Selection Grade post shall also be treated as substantive for the purpose of fixation of pay on appointment to higher post. In the instant case, the pay drawn by the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was reduced on account of subsequent revision and notional promotion to a higher cadre, which is impermissible and contrary to FR 22. As per FR 21(3), the pay drawn by an employee in a Special Grade/ Special Promotion Post/ Special Adhoc Promotion Post shall be treated as substantive pay for the purpose of regulation of pay in the Higher Promotion Post in the regular line. Once the pay drawn in the lower cadre is treated as substantive pay, the same cannot be reduced retrospectively on the ground of subsequent notional promotions or by treating the Selection Grade as inapplicable, particularly when the petitioner had in fact discharged duties in that grade and drawn the corresponding pay scale. Learned counsel further relied upon FR 33(3) and contended that the pay of a senior promoted to higher post and is drawing 10 less pay than his junior whose pay has been refixed in the higher post consequent upon selection grade in the lower cadre due to stepped up, the monetary benefit was allowed under G.O.Ms.No.190, Finance (Courts) Department, dated 10.06.1983. That is how the pay was protected in the case where the refixation was effected in the lower position due to selection grade will be protected after promotion to the senior in the promotion post. 9. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit and stated that, in view of notional promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer with effect from 20.01.1984, it can be treated that he was holding selection grade, as such, the stepping up of pay granted in the selection grade cannot be accepted, as such, pursuant to the subsequent directions, the pay of the petitioner was re- fixed. With regard to the contention of non-providing opportunity to the petitioner, while refixing the pay is concerned, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the promotions were effected notionally to the petitioner as per his seniority and entitlement, and the pay was fixed basing on the pay attached to the subject post, as such, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Draughtsman in the year 1963, promoted as Draughtsman Grade-II in the year 1969, and was subsequently granted Selection Grade 11 Draughtsman Grade-III vide proceedings in the year 1983, with retrospective effect from 05.01.1972. As the petitioner’s junior was drawing higher pay, his pay was stepped up vide proceedings dated 24.03.1999, with effect from 22.04.1985. The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2002. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the petitioner’s pay was fixed and he was granted notional promotion as Supervisor (Assistant Engineer) under FR 26(a)(a), and his pay was fixed at Rs.15,475 + 12 FPI to Rs.16,000 + 12 FPI with effect from 01.04.2002. Subsequently, in the revision, vide proceedings dated 22.05.2020, his pay in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was refixed and reduced to Rs.14,425 + 12 FPP to Rs.14,425 + 525 + 12 FPP with effect from 01.03.2002. Further, vide proceedings dated 27.05.2020, he was notionally promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, wherein his pay was fixed at Rs.14,950 + 12 FPP to Rs.15,475 + 12 FPP with effect from 01.03.2002. A bare perusal of the proceedings dated 20.09.2018, when compared with the subsequent proceedings dated 22.05.2020 and 27.05.2020, clearly establishes that the pay fixed in the cadre of Assistant Engineer vide proceedings dated 20.09.2018 was reduced by the subsequent proceedings dated 22.05.2020, resulting in reduction of petitioner's pay fixed at a stage even lower than the pay admissible on his next notional promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. For such reduction, admittedly no notice is issued and no opportunity of hearing is provided to the petitioner, who was retired long back from the service i.e., on 30.06.2002. As per the Fundamental Rules, once the pay is fixed, the same cannot be taken away without issuing 12 any notice and without following the principles of natural justice. That apart, as per FR 22 Note 3, the pay fixed in the Selection Grade Post is treated to be a substantive pay for the purpose of fixation of pay on appointment to higher post, and as per FR 21(3), the pay drawn by such employees in the Special Grade or Special Promotion or Special Adhoc Promotion shall be treated as substantive pay for the purpose of regulation of their pay in the higher promotion post in the regular line, as such, the pay cannot be reduced. Thus, pay has to be protected while promoting to the higher post, and the same cannot be reduced to below the pay that was fixed in the lower grade. The aspect of stepping up of the scale to bring on parity with the junior's pay was done during his actual employment period, and while effecting notional promotions, the same cannot be taken away, and the same needs to be protected. 11. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned proceedings No.SE/IC/GNT/AB/EC-3/389M, dated 22.05.2020 and Proceedings No.SE/IC/GNT/ AB/EC-3/405M, dated 27.05.2020 are hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities to fix the pay in line with the proceedings No.SE/NTPA/EC.3/E/31/1126M, dated 20.09.2018 and in accordance with the Fundamental Rules, within a period of 13 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and release the arrears, if any, within a further period of two months. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 29.07.2026 Dvs 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 5394/2023 Dt: 29.07.2026 Dvs