CC/873/2025 of K. Balaraju Vs SRI SAJJANAR I.P.S on 20 January 2026

COMMON ORDER

Originally, the rvrit petition, W.P No.23957 of 20l: rvas filed bv the petitioner (K. Ilalaraiu) aggrieved hy, the action ,r' rhe lespondent- authorities/'l'Cj S R'l'C in not granting him the 20 1,cr r. Syrecial (irade incrernent in pursuance of (lircular No.PD-04/201 t dare c 12.01.20 t I . -l'he n,rit petition rvas allou,cd by this Court by order dated 26 , 7.2024. based on the subrnission o1- Iearned counscl that the case was cc,r t cd b5 the earlier orders of this Coult in W.P.No. 16932 of 2015 dated I 7 t rj 21115. w liich in tunl was covered b1, the orders passed in W.P.No.7l: i of 20ll dated 2t0i l0t2. l.l. ['he qrievancc o1'the petitioner is that, deslr r thc orde rs datcd 26.07.2024, hc n-r ade rcpresentations to the respondenr- r thorities sceking grant of the 20 1,'eals Special Crade increment, but l1o acr .)n \\ as taken. I-le also issued a legal notice dated 03.01.2025, which elir red no rcsponse. Consequentlv. the petitioner filed the present contc I ,rt case .rlleging violation of the rrrders passed in W.P.No.23957 of 2015 r terJ 26.01 .2024.

2. In parallel, the respondents filed Review I.A.No.1 ol 2025, seeking review of tho orders passed in the writ petition. Their r.r r rention is that the petitioner was prornoted on 0l .07.201 I , was granted a r rtional increment upon such promotion. and completed 20 years o1 ;ervice only by 01.08.20 I l. Sincc the promotion preceded cornpletir r of 20 l,cars of service, the petitioner was allegedly not entitled to th: l0 1,ears Special Grade increnrent.

2.1. It is lurther conrended that the orders in W I, io.2_19-57 of 201 5 were not covered bv the orders in W.P.No.7355 of 201.1 : rd W.p.No.l6932 of 2015-{s those cases related to non-g.ant ofspecial sr cre i,crenrent due cc 873 2025 & review ra_3_2025 NBK, J to service in different regions of TGSRTC, whereas the grievance of the petitioner herein is distinct.

3. Hcard Mr. G. Naresh Kumar, leamed counsel lbr the petitioner, and the leamcd Standing Counsel for respondent- IGSRT(l. Perused the record.

4. At the outset, it is to be notcd that the glicvancc in W.P.No.7355 of 201 2 and W.P.No. 16932 of 2015 pertained to inaction in granting special grade increments upon completion of 20 years of service in accordance with Circular No.PD-04/201 I dated 12.01 .20 t I . 'f he grievance of the petitioner herein is identical.

4.1. A perusal olpage No.9 of the counter alfidavit, which is a neat copy of the Office Order d ated 24.09 .2012 issued by the Regional Manager, Warangal Region, shows that the petitioner's date olrcgular appointment is 0 I .08. 1987, his eligibitity for promotion as Conductor (Crade-l) was 01.07.20 I l, and he was promoted as ADC. On this basis, completion of 12 years. of service would be on 01.08.1999, and completion of 20 years of seruice on 0l .08.2007.

4.2. However, paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit appears ambiguous and not borne out by the record. For ready reference, paragraph No.8 is extracted below: "8. lt is submitted that the case of the Petitioner in the present W.P.No.23957 of 20'15 is different. The petitioner herein was granted stagnation increment on completion of 12 years of service in the same category of conductor w.e.f. 01.08.2003 and there is no dispute in this regard. Thus, he had completed 20 years of service on 01.08.2011 . But before completion of 20 years service, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Grade-l conductor on \\

(.8 , 2025 & rev evr .a-3 2025 NBK, ] O'1.07.2011. Accordingly, his pay was fixed in the scale Df the post of Conductor Grade-l by adding one notional incre rent w.e.f. 01.07 .2011. Thus, the petitioner was promoted before c < npletion of 20 years of service, as such it cannot be said that the p€ itionerwas stagnated for 20 years in the same category. Therefr,r ;, he is not eligible for 20 years stagnation increment."

5. The pctitioner states in paragraph No.3 of his al'i ravit that he was tenlinated liom senice on 29.1l.l99l and reinstat,r on 28.06. 1994 pursuant to orders ol the Industrial l'ribunal, Warangi I in I.D.No.75 of 1991, rvith continuit) ot-se'rvicc and attendant benefits, rl r reh \^.ithout back wages. I [encc, hc is dccrned to be in continuous sen,ice ] rnr [987. tnakir.rs him eligibte for the first stagnation increment in 1999 r ,rd the second in 2007. as he remaine d in the post of Conductor until his I r ,rnotion in 201 I .

6. The stand taken by the respondent in paragraph I.i affidavit does nor con'elare with the Office Order dated . admits appointment on 01.08.19t17 and promotion on (Jl respondent claims that the l2 years stagnation increme:r I fiom 0 I .08.2003, apparcntly cxcluding the terminr,r

29. l,1.1991 to 28.06.1994, despite the Tribunal's direcrit servrce .8 of the counter- 1 09 2011. which )7.201 l. Yet, the ri,as granted only' on period lrom r ol' continuity o1'

7. The Tribunal directed reinstatement with continL tv of serr,ice but without back wages. Accordingly, the petitioner is :eerned to be in continuous service from the date of appointment, thoug I without ntonetar), benefits for the termination period. That period must be otionally counted towards total serwice, cven if it is not reckonbd for qual I ing service at the time of retirernent. Therefbre, the calculation of 12 year of service by the cc 873 2025 & review_ia_3 2025 NBK,I respondent in 2003 is erroneous and contrary to the direction of continuity ol service.

7.1. It is true that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary benefits such as pay, accumulation of carrrcd leave, or regular arrnual increments for the termination period, as he did not actually rvork during that time. llowever. where continuiry of service is exprcssly directed, such notional service cannot be ignored for the purpose of conlputing total serwice fbr stagnation or special grade increments. The petitioner cannot be penalized twice once by denial of monetary benefits during termination and again by cxclusion of that period while computing total service. The criteria lor special grade increments under Circular No.PD-04/201 I is based on total scrvicc and does not distinguish between total service and qualifuing servtce

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to stagnation/special grade increrrents as per Circular No.PD-04/201 1 dated 12.01.201 l, based on his total scrr"ice, including notional service arising out of continuity of service, provided no promotion was obtained during the relevant period.

9. As the petitioner was appointed in 1987 and promoted only in 201l, lre completed 12 years of service in 1999 and20 years in2007, without any intervening promotion. Therefore, he is entitled to both the first and second special grade increments upon completion ol l2 and 20 years of service respectively, in addition to the benefits accruing from his prornotion in 201 1. The grant of special grade increments shall not adversely affect any rnonetary benefits arising out of such promotion.

2025 & revrew ra 3-2025 NBK, J

10. Tl-ris court is of the vierv that the non-implementr,l crl of the orders dated 2(r.07.2024 was not willful but arose from an errorr, rtrs exclusion o1' the temrination period rvhilc computing service. Hencc his Coun is not inclined to invokc Sections l0and 12 of the Contempt ol ourts Act. 1971, at this stage and grants time lbr compliance.

11. Accordingll'. the Contcmpt Case is disposed of witI a direction to thc respondcnts to pass appropriate orders granting the specil, lratle increnlents to the petitioner. as pcr Circtrlar No.PD-04/2011 dated I .0 1.2011. within four wccks ll'orrt the datc'of receipt of a copy of this oldc

12. Review I.A.No.l of 2025 stands dismissed. No co -s. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pcnding in both thc contempt case and I : rcr ierv pctition, sha ll stand c losecl ,D/- A,V.S. PRASAD r EPUrY REGls}Ap- \ '------ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, SRI SAJJANAR I P S, Vrce Chairman and tvlanadigg fri 3ctor' Bus Bhavan' icsn t c, IVluslreerabad. HYderabad' Vijay Bhanu Regional rtll"lg"'li"G S R T C ' Warang rl Reqion' lvarangal District. Smt Padmavati Depot lVlanager, T G S RTC ' Thorrt u Bus Depot' Warangal District ;;;;e i"-ant NARESH KUITAR GoRIGE' Advocat' oPUCI one cc to sRt GHANDRA;;k;;R N tsc ron TSFi c zoNE 2) IOPUC]

I

E 6 Two CD CoPies u, ADK/PSL c, 1 \

HIGH COURT DATED:2010112026

COMMON ORDER

CONTEMPT CASE No.873 of 2025 & Review lA No.3 of 2025 ln W.P.No.23957 of 2015 STAIt: S' 1 tt8 Z0Z,E * DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASI: AND DISMISSING THE l.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.P.No.23957 of 2015 WTTHOUT COSTi . ,...., -^r j

- .)a'' '.\, \ ,\ ' - D5 _gT 2PnL (