Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/2811/2022 of K.V.Hanumantha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 16 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 2811/2022 Between: 1. K.V.HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGE 45 YEARS,
APHC010041212022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2811/2022
Between:
1. K.V.HANUMANTHA RAO,, S/O LATE SUBBA RAO, AGE 45 YEARS, WORKING AS A SENIOR ASSISTANT (PERSONNEL) REGIONAL
MANAGERS OFFICE, EAST GODAVARI REGION, ANDHRA
PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (APSRTC), RAJAHMUNDARY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
FINANCE
AND
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. THE
ANDHRA
PRADESH
STATE
ROAD
TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED
BY
ITS
CHAIRMAN
AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS
STATION, VIJ AYAWADA.
3. THE CHIEF MANAGER P AND BOARD SECRETARY, THE ANDHRA
PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, RTC
HOUSE, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION,VIJAYAWADA.
4. THE REGIONAL MNAGER, APSRTC, EAST GODAVARI REGION, RAJAHMUNDRY
...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature in WRIT of MANDAMUS declare the 2nd Respondent impugned Proceedings vide No-P2/544(01)/2020-PO-III Dated 5.2.2020 86 28.9.2021 in not protecting the Petitioner Ex-Serviceman Re-employment pay protection where basic pay existing s on date of his retirement in Military Services and not fixing his Salary re-fixation which is illegal, arbitrary and the same is contrary to Fundamental Rule15(19) and G.O. Ms. No. 67, Fin. 86 Plg.
(FW.FR.II) Dept., dt. 20-3-1986, G.O.Ms.No.95, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 03.04.2012 and the same is without any authority, which is highly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary Articles 14, 16 86 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to forthwith consider the Petitioners legitimate right of Salary re-fixation upon considering his services at Indian Army as per Fundamental Rule15(19) and G.O. Ms. No.
67, Fin. 86 Plg. (FW.FR.II) Dept., dt. 20-3-1986, G.O.Ms.No.95, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 03.04.2012
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith process the Petitioner's Salary Pay-Re fixation and advance increments as per Fundamental Rule15(19) and G.O. Ms. No. 67, Fin. and Plg. (FW.FR.II) Dept., dt. 20-3- 1986, G.O.Ms.No.95, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 03.04.2012
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 Pleased to grant leave to file the counter affidavit in WP No. 2811/2022 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T N M RANGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)
2. .
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
2. The petitioner was employed in the Indian Army from 28.04.1994 to 31.12.2010. After he retired from the Army, he joined APSRTC as a Junior Assistant. It is claimed that while serving in the Indian Army, he participated in the Kargil War.
3. The petitioner, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 20.03.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 03.04.2012, claims advance increments equal to the completed years of service. It is contended that the said G.Os were issued to comply with the directions of the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms, and the Ministry of Home Affairs Department, to provide pay protection to ex-servicemen who joined civil posts. The petitioner thus contends that he is entitled to pay protection fixing advanced increments. In this regard, it is contended that a representation was made to the authorities; however, it has not been considered since 2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Circular Memo dated 26.04.2013 and Circular Memo dated 20.06.2025 on the subject issue and requests the Court to pass appropriate orders in terms of the said Circular Memo.
4. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the increments that he is claiming, since during 1994 to 2010, he was in the Army, and he joined APSRTC subsequently. For the service rendered, he is entitled to a pension. Based on 16 years of service in the Army, he is claiming increments that would amount to a double benefit. It is further contended that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in APSRTC through direct recruitment. He was selected under the quota reserved for ex-servicemen, and his appointment was through a regular selection process; his pay was fixed at the minimum of the time scale. The respondents further contend that the petitioner is not entitled to advance increments, as he was not in the service of APSRTC. The service rendered in the Army does not constitute the service rendered to APSRTC, since he is paid a pension; therefore, the additional increments are not allowable. G.O.Ms.No.95 was issued on 03.04.2012, and the same will have a prospective effect and not a retrospective effect.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.23199 of 2020 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2122 of 2019 and Circular Memo dated 20.06.2025.
6. Having regard to the latest Circular Memo of the 1st respondent dated 20.06.2025 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2122 of 2019, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders to grant advance increments in terms of the Circular Memo dated 20.06.2025, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:17.11.2025 ANI
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION No.2811 of 2022
Date:17.11.2025
ANI