P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 27.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2026 Date of uploading : 25.08.2026 APHC010533902024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 27759 OF 2024 Between: 1. S PRASAD, S/o. Krishnaiah, aged 36 years, Occ. Police constable, R/o. Woollapalem (V), Singarayakonda (M) Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The State Level Police Recruitment Board, Represented by its Chairman, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The Additional Director General of Police, Training, Mangalagiri Guntur District. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District at Ongole. 6. The Superintendent of Police, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. P a g e | 2 7. The Principal District Training Centre, Police Department, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: RAMESH BABU TALLURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 27759 OF 2024 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent herein in issuing Endorsement vide C.No.499/A9/20 09 dated 24.06.2023 rejecting to revise the pay scale and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner along with his batchmates w.e.f. 2011 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 5th respondent to revise the basic pay scale of the petitioner on par with his batchmates w.e.f. 16.04.2011 by setting aside the Endorsement vide C.No. 499/A9/2009 dated 24.06.2023…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: Pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent for recruitment to the post of Police Constables (Civil) in 2008, petitioner submitted his application and subjected himself for the selection process. Upon selection, petitioner was sent for training on 16.04.2011 in the 7th respondent training center for a period of nine months. During the training period, the father of one Ms.Sridevi lodged a complaint before the police alleging that the petitioner had cheated his daughter by refusing to marry her. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.319 of 2011 was registered against the petitioner in Ongole Taluka Police Station for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Thereby, petitioner was arrested by the police; however, petitioner married the daughter P a g e | 4 of the de facto complainant, and case was compromised before Lok Adalat on 30.11.2011, resulting in his acquittal. 4. While so, the 4th respondent, in exercise of powers under Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999, discharged the petitioner from training by an order dated 29.12.2012 on the grounds of unauthorized absense from training exceeding seven days, and his involvement in Crime No. 319 of 2019. Aggrieved by the said order of discharge, petitioner approached Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.5605 of 2012, and the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the order passed by the 4th respondent, vide its order dated 30.08.2012. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, now that the applicant has married the complainant and has to look after the family, on humanitarian grounds, as the applicant’s absence is not willful, this Tribunal set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to re-induct the applicant into training in the ensuing training session to complete his remaining two months balance training and on successful completion of training, the applicant be given posting in the existing vacancy.” 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the respondents filed W.P.No.12142 of 2013 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, upon elaborate consideration, dismissed the writ petition, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal. Pursuant to the dismissal of the said writ petition, petitioner was sent for training for a period of nine months, instead of the left-over period of two months. Upon completion of the training, the respondents, vide proceedings dated 14.12.2014, appointed the P a g e | 5 petitioner as a Police Constable and placed him in 2014 batch instead of 2011 batch, though he was originally selected in 2011 batch. After his appointment in 2014, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent seeking placement along with his batch mates of 2011 selection batch. However, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 25.04.2018, rejected the said request. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.11869 of 2019 before this Court, which was disposed of by an order dated 22.08.2019, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as working from 16.04.2011 for the purpose of seniority and future promotions. As the said directions were not complied with, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, pursuant to which the 5th respondent issued proceedings dated 03.06.2021, placing the petitioner in the seniority list below Sri P. Venkateswarulu, the last candidate in the 2011 batch, with effect from 16.03.2012. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he was placed along with his 2011 batch mates in the seniority list, the respondents did not revise his pay on par with them. As a result, the petitioner is drawing a lesser salary compared to his batch mates, and even less than that of the 2012 batch. Hence, petitioner submitted representations dated 22.06.2022 and 30.12.2022 to the respondents seeking revision of his pay scale along with all consequential benefits on par with his batch mates. As no orders were passed thereon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15623 of 2023. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the 5th respondent issued an endorsement dated P a g e | 6 24.06.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s request for revision of pay on par with the 2011 batch mates. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that, having placed him in the seniority list along with his 2011 batch mates, the respondents cannot refuse to step up his pay on par with them. 8. Respondents filed counter stating that the case of the petitioner was considered pursuant to the directions in W.P.No.11869 of 2019, wherein it has been specifically directed to consider the petitioner as working from 16.04,2011 for the purpose of seniority and for further promotions, and it was made clear that petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages. In compliance with the said directions, the respondents passed the impugned order, considering his case for fixation of seniority for future promotions on par with his batch mates and his case with regard to stepping up of pay on par with his batch mates was rejected. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner was placed in the seniority list along with his 2011 batch mates, respondents cannot deny him the benefit of revision of pay on par with them, and such denial resulted in the petitioner drawing lesser salary even than his juniors, which is arbitrary and unjust. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgment in Central Bank of India Vs P a g e | 7 Dragendra Singh Jadon1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.22 held as follows: The Appellant – Bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing the Respondent from service, to deny him the benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his duties. 10. Placing reliance on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the employer is at fault, it cannot take advantage of its own wrong in wrongfully dismissing an employee from service so as to deny him the benefits of seniority, promotion, and other consequential benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had continued in service. 11. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the case of the petitioner was already considered pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.11869 of 2019, wherein it was categorically held that the petitioner is to be treated as working from 16.04.2011 only for the purpose of seniority and future promotions and that he is not entitled to any back wages. In compliance with the said directions, the respondents have rightly fixed the seniority of the petitioner along with the 2011 batch. Hence rejected the claim for stepping up of pay, as the Court had expressly denied monetary benefits, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned endorsement, as the delay in appointment of the petitioner was due to his own conduct and not attributable to the department, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 1 (2022) 8 SCC 378 P a g e | 8 12. Upon hearing the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the delay in appointing the petitioner to the said post is neither attributable to the department nor due to any unavoidable circumstances beyond his control; rather, it is solely on account of his own conduct, particularly his involvement in the criminal case, on account of which he could not be appointed on par with his batch mates. However, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, on humanitarian grounds, directed re- induction of the petitioner into training and consequential appointment, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents. Accordingly, the department re-inducted the petitioner into training, and upon successful completion thereof, he was appointed in the year 2014. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the department. Thereafter, this Court passed orders in W.P.No.11869 of 2012 dated 22.08.2019, wherein categorically held that the petitioner is entitled to be considered as working from 16.04.2011 for the purpose of seniority and future promotions, and it was made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages, and the said order has become final. As such, petitioner is entitled only for seniority for the purpose of further promotions and is not entitled to any monetary benefit. Accordingly, he was given seniority for the purpose of promotion without any monetary benefit, and he was added as the last candidate in the seniority list in the 2011 batch. 13. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim any benefit on par with his batch mates of 2011. The 5th respondent, after considering all the aspects of the P a g e | 9 issue, had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner, as such, it requires no interference. In the instant case, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Central Bank of India’s case (cited supra) has no application, as there is no mistake or lacuna on the part of the department, and it is all the own makings of the petitioner; as such, the principle laid down in the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs P a g e | 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 27759 OF 2024 Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs