WP/29457/2024 of G MUNI VENKATA NARAYANA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 3 February 2026

1. G MUNI VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O.G.VENKATA MUNI, AGED

YEARS,

RETIRED ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (TRG) EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT,

AP, VIJAYAWADA.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING, (EANDT) DEPARTMENT, STATE OF AP, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP.

2. THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF AP VIJAYAWADA.

...RESPONDENT(S):

::2::

This Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing and paying the increments from February 2017 to February 2020 as illegal , arbitrary , violative of FR24 and accordingly set aside the 2nd respondent Memo C3/2188/2021 dated 18.11.2022 and consequentially direct the respondents to release and pay the increments from February 2017 to February 2020 by extending the benefits of the final orders of this Honourable Court passed in WP.No.45.S3/2021, dated 24.02.2021, WP No.9228/2021 dated 13.07.2021 and WP.No.28050/2021 , dated 28.04.2022 and pass

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

3. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing and paying the annual increments for the period from February 2017 to February 2020, which action is illegal and arbitrary.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.72 dated 14.02.2017. Subsequently, the 1st respondent revoked the suspension and reinstated the petitioner into service vide

::3::

G.O.Rt.No.5 dated 23.01.2020. After his retirement, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.63 dated 20.03.2024, framing three (03) Articles of Charges against the petitioner. It is submitted that the annual periodical increments due for the period from February 2017 to February 2020 are liable to be paid to the petitioner, even during the period of suspension, as the said increments were not withheld by any specific order of the respondents. However, the 2nd respondent issued Memo No. C3/2188/2021 dated 18.11.2022 stating that the annual grade increments from February 2017 to February 2020 would be considered only after receipt of acquittal orders in the ACB case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, 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, by an order of competent authority.

6. The said issue was considered by this Court in order W.P.No.9228 of 2021 dated 13.07.2021, which reads as follows; “this Court is of the opinion that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner FR-24 fell for consideration in the Division Bench judgment i.e., W.P. No.6617 of 2004.

The Division Bench clearly held that order of withholding increment is an exception rather than the rule and that the three

::4::

increments can only be withheld on proof of case, unsatisfactory service or bad conduct. It is also mentioned that such an order should state the period from which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of withdrawal, postponing the future increments also.

Ultimately, the learned Judges concluded that an order holding the increment is in the nature of a penalty and can only be issued if due process is followed.

The same is reiterated in the subsequent judgment of the Bench and also of the learned Single Judge. This is applicable to the present facts and nothing to the contrary was pointed out by the respondents.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents in withholding the increments of the petitioner is not correct and contrary to the settled law on the subject. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the increments due to the petitioner.”

7. Following the above said judgment and also following the judgment of this Court in Komma Venkata Prasada Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, in W.P. No. 30863 of 2025 this Court holds that the action of the respondents in not granting annual grade increments is illegal and consequently directs the respondents to release the same to the petitioner within a period of one (01) month.

::5::

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, wherein the respondents relied on Circular Memo No. 27703/778-A/FR.II/2012, dated 26.02.2013, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, regarding the applicability of Fundamental Rules. Specific instructions were reiterated concerning the sanction of increments during the suspension period, pending its regularization.

6. According to the proviso under F.R. 26(a), and also the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and in Komma Venkata Prasada Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the increments of the petitioner from the year 2017 to 2020 onwards. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:04.02.2026 klk

::6::

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.29457 of 2024

Dt:04.02.2026 klk