WP/7498/2026 of A CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 March 2026

1. A CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY, S/O. A.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED

YEARS, OCC. DEPUTYTRANSPORT COMMISSIONER (ADMIN) O/O. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NTR BHAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY

TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.

2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, STATE OF A.P, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT-520001.

...RESPONDENT(S):

The Court made the following ORDER:

1. 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 annual grade increments for the years2025 and 2026 (2 years) as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, violative of the provisions of Fundamental Rules and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court apart from violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the annual grade increments for the years 2025 and 2026 (2 years) in terms of the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 9228 of 2021 dated 13.07.2021 and W.P.No. 36534 of 2025 dated 31.12.2025 and pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not released the Annual Grade Increments due to the petitioner for the years 2025 and 2026, and such inaction on the part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6617 of 2004 and similar judgments passed by this Court in W.P.No. 9228 of 2021, 4553 of 2021, and 18004 of 2022. This Court in similar circumstances had directed the Respondent Authorities to sanction the annual grade increments after referring to the provisions of F.R.24.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Representation of the Petitioner for the purpose as sought would be considered by the Respondent authorities and an appropriate decision would be taken.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 6617 of 2004, dated 04.11.2004, was considering the case of an individual seeking subsistence allowance after factoring in the annual grade increments. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had directed that the subsisting allowance be paid after taking into account the annual increments. In the Writ Petition filed by the State, the Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the provisions of FR 24, held that unless an order of withholding increments is passed, the same cannot be withheld. The paragraphs Nos. 5, 6, and 7 thereof are extracted below: “It is contended by the Petitioners that in view of the provisions of F.R.24, as the Respondent has not been in active service, there is no method by which his conduct in service be judged. Therefore, he is not entitled to any incremental benefits. In view of the provisions of F.R.24: “ F.R.24. 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 State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment the withholding of an increment the withholding authority shall state the period of which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments”.

It is apparent from the rule that an increment shall be drawable by an employee as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may however be withheld on proof of a Government Servant’s unsatisfactory or bad conduct. However, that an order withholding increments shall state the period from which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have effect of postponing future increments. In any event, an order of withholding of increments constitutes a penalty and requires following the due procedure under the provisions of A.P.C.S. Rules, 1991. It is not the case of the Petitioners that any such procedure was followed or an order withholding the increments of the respondent was passed. In the above circumstances, the assumption of the Petitioners that the respondent is not entitled to the incremental benefits is misconception. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference in this Writ Petition”.

7. The said principle was followed in series of judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos 9228 of 2021, 4553 of 2021, and 18004 of 2022.

8. Considering the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the annual grade increments due to the Petitioner for the years 2025 and 2026 within a period of One (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 01.04.2026

klk

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 7498/2026

01.04.2026 klk