WP/6866/2020 of C.Penchala Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2024

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, SchoolEducation Dept. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,[Guntur][ Dist.]Education Dept. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,[Guntur][ Dist.]

2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education,[Govt,][ of][ Andhra]Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.

3. The Headmaster, Z.P.P.High School, Siddavaram, Rapuru mandal,SPSR Nellore Dist.SPSR Nellore Dist.

4. The District Educational Officer, SPSR Nellore Dist[at][ Nellore.]

5. The Dy.Director, District Treasury Office, SPSR Nellore[Dist.][ At][ Nellore.]

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue Writ or Order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclare the impugned Proc.Rc.No.5/HM/2019 dt.12-06-2019 issued by the3respondentiscontrarytotheSub-Clause(viii)ofRule-4ofG.O.Ms.No.288 F and P dt.17.11.1986 as the petitioner[has][ exercised][ his]option against the erroneous fixation within the period of one month i.e, on03-02-2017 against the Proc. dt.31.01.2017 issued by the3'^'^ respondentrelying upon Sub-clauses(ii),(iii) (a andb) of Rule-4[would][ amount]to misinterpretation,illegal,unwarranted,misconstruedandsetasidethesameandconsequentlydeclarethatthepetitionerisentitledtobesanctionedthe oneadditionalincrementbelongtoB.Ed.,w.e.f.from01-06-1987 at basic pay at Rs.610/- instead of basic pay at Rs.590/- w.e.f.01-06-1986 with all consequential benefits such as revising and refixing thepay.

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]statedin the affidavit filedin support of the writ petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto direct the3'"'' respondent to takeintoconsider therepresentation dt.03-02-2017 for fixing the pay for purpose of limitation bysuspendingimpugnedProc.Rc.No.5/HM/2019dt.12.06.2019ofthe3rdrespondent pending disposal of the above W.P.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI EADARA PEDDANNA

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR EDUCATIONCounsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNINGThe Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010111782020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 6866/2020

Between:

C.penchala Lakshmi

AND

...PETITIONER

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. EADARA PEDDANNA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP)

The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the[Constitution][ of][ India]

seeking the following relief:

“to issue Writ or Order more in the nature of Writof Mandamus declare the impugned Proc.Rc.No.5/HM/2019,dt.12-06-2019 issued by the S'® respondent is contrary[to]the Sub-Clause(viii)of Rule-4of G.O.Ms.No.288, F&Pdt. 17.11.1986 as the petitioner has exercised his[option]against the erroneous fixation within the period ofonemonthi.e., on 03-02-2017 against the Proc. Dt.31.01.2017issued by the 3''^ respondent relying upon Subclauses[(li)](Hi) (a and b) of Rule-4 would amount to misinterpretation,illegal, unwarranted, misconstrued and set aside the[same]and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled[to]

Conclusion

be sanctionedthe oneadditional increment belongtoB.Ed.,w.e.f.from01-06-1987at basic payatRs.610/-instead of basic pay at Rs.590/- w.e.f. 01-06-1986 withallconsequential benefits such as revising and refixing[the]pay"

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has passedB.A., andB.Ed., and got selected to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher[ in] DSC-1983and joined on 09.02.1984 at P.S.U.P.School, K.G.R.Palem, Rapuru Mandal,Nellore district and thereafter, promoted as School Assistant. On attaining theageof superannuation,the petitioner retired fromserviceon31.03.2017.Accordingtothepolicy,everyindividual whohavegraduationormoregraduations prior to his/her appointment,is entitled to grant one additionalincrement to each graduation. But the respondents taken[into][ consideration]the qualification of B.A., only and ignored B.Ed., qualification, and sanctionedonly one additional increment of Rs.15/- and accordingly[revised]in RevisedPay Scales, 1986. After lot of efforts by the petitioner, when the petitioner atvergeof her retirement,thepetitioner was sanctionedthe remaining oneadditionalincrementrelatestoB.Ed.,videordersRc.No.4/2017,dated31.01.2017by the3'"'^ respondent fixing payat basicofRs.590/-w.e.f.01.06.1986 duly rectifying the error. But the respondents made[ another][ error]in not fixing the pay w.e.f. 01.06.1987 at basic pay of Rs.610/-, but fixed atRs.590/- w.e.f. 01.06.1986. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made arepresentation on 03.02.2017 within a periodof one monthasper Sub-B.Ed., and got selected to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher[ in] DSC-1983and joined on 09.02.1984 at P.S.U.P.School, K.G.R.Palem, Rapuru Mandal,Nellore district and thereafter, promoted as School Assistant. On attaining theageof superannuation,the petitioner retired fromserviceon31.03.2017.Accordingtothepolicy,everyindividual whohavegraduationormoregraduations prior to his/her appointment,is entitled to grant one additionalincrement to each graduation. But the respondents taken[into][ consideration]the qualification of B.A., only and ignored B.Ed., qualification, and sanctionedonly one additional increment of Rs.15/- and accordingly[revised]in RevisedPay Scales, 1986. After lot of efforts by the petitioner, when the petitioner atvergeof her retirement,thepetitioner was sanctionedthe remaining oneadditionalincrementrelatestoB.Ed.,videordersRc.No.4/2017,dated31.01.2017by the3'"'^ respondent fixing payat basicofRs.590/-w.e.f.01.06.1986 duly rectifying the error. But the respondents made[ another][ error]in not fixing the pay w.e.f. 01.06.1987 at basic pay of Rs.610/-, but fixed atRs.590/- w.e.f. 01.06.1986. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made arepresentation on 03.02.2017 within a periodof one monthasper Sub- Clause(viii) of Rule-4 of G.O.Ms.No.288, F & P, dated 17.11.1986 requestingto revise the dates. Surprisingly, the 3^^ respondent raised an objection thatthe petitioner failed to exercise the option within a period of six months underthe provisions of Rule-4 and rejected the application, without passing ordersvide impugnedproc.dated12.06.2019in implementingtheinterimordersdated 16.05.2019 passed in O.A.No.815/2019. Aggrieved by the same, thepresent writ petition has been filed.

Issues

3. The3’’'^ respondent filed counter affidavit denyingall the allegationsmadein the writ petition and mainly contended that,[the][ contention]of thepetitioneris she joinedin the year 1984 and as such,sheisentitledforadditional increments.If that be so, the petitioner has to made representationimmediately thereon, but not after lapse of 25 years.Itis further contendedthat, as per the service of record of the petitioner, an entry was made in 1993itself, which clearly shows that increment was extended to the petitioner onaccount of holding B.A., B.Ed., qualifications.It[is][ further][ contended][ that][ the]petitionerretiredonsuperannuationon31.03.2017andprocessedherpensionarypaperstotherespectiveauthoritiesmuchpriortotherepresentations submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to broughtto the notice of the authorities in thirty years and suddenly raised the presentmadein the writ petition and mainly contended that,[the][ contention]of thepetitioneris she joinedin the year 1984 and as such,sheisentitledforadditional increments.If that be so, the petitioner has to made representationimmediately thereon, but not after lapse of 25 years.Itis further contendedthat, as per the service of record of the petitioner, an entry was made in 1993itself, which clearly shows that increment was extended to the petitioner onaccount of holding B.A., B.Ed., qualifications.It[is][ further][ contended][ that][ the]petitionerretiredonsuperannuationon31.03.2017andprocessedherpensionarypaperstotherespectiveauthoritiesmuchpriortotherepresentations submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to broughtto the notice of the authorities in thirty years and suddenly raised the present issue after inordinate delay and that too after superannuation on 31.03.2017.Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. The reply affidavit filed by the petitioner mainly contending that,itIS awell settled principle laid down by the Apex Court reported in M.R. Gupta vs.Union of India & Ors\ that pay fixation of initial pay being of continuingwrongthe questionof limitation doesnot arise.Hence,aslongastheemployee is in service, a fresh cause arises every month when he is paid hismonthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to therules. If is further contended that the 3'^^ respondent fixed pay vide procs.dated31.01.2017 and immediately after three days i.e., 03.02.2017, the petitionerexercised option for pay fixation date as 01.06.1987 and also brought to thenotice of theDistrict Educational Officer and the saidDistrict EducationalOfficerissuedLr.No.2089/A4/2014,dated06.05.2017recommendingtheHeadmaster to take necessary steps about pay fixation dates, which clearlyshowsthat thepetitioner hadexercisedoptionwithinthetimei.e.on03.02.2017 and 06.05.2017.But, without takingintoconsiderationthosedocuments, the speaking order dated 12.06.2019 has been passed by the 3'"^respondent. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Heard Mr.E.Peddanna, learned counsel for the petitioner[and][ learned]Assistant Government Pleader for Education, for the respondents.Assistant Government Pleader for Education, for the respondents.

6. Onhearing,learned counselfor thepetitioner whilereiterating thecontents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the3'"'^ respondent ignoredinitial representation dated 03.02.2017 of the petitioner, and relied upon thereminders dated 21.05.2019 and 25.02.2019, as they[were][ referred][ to][ in][ the]interimordersinO.A.No.815of2019andconsideredandcametoaconclusion that the petitioner challenged the same after the lapse of stipulatedperiod,aspertheprocedure.Hefurthersubmitsthat,iftheoriginalrepresentation dated 03.02.2017 taken into account, the question of time limitirrespective of six months or one month does not arise.[Therefore,][ learned]counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the3'"'^ respondent ignoredinitial representation dated 03.02.2017 of the petitioner, and relied upon thereminders dated 21.05.2019 and 25.02.2019, as they[were][ referred][ to][ in][ the]interimordersinO.A.No.815of2019andconsideredandcametoaconclusion that the petitioner challenged the same after the lapse of stipulatedperiod,aspertheprocedure.Hefurthersubmitsthat,iftheoriginalrepresentation dated 03.02.2017 taken into account, the question of time limitirrespective of six months or one month does not arise.[Therefore,][ learned]counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating thecontents madein the counter affidavit, submits that, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the decision of Suryadev Rai Vs Ramchandar[Rai^,][ held][ that][ if][ the]petitioner maderepresentation/application after one year from the date ofcause of action, need not be entertained unless the petitioner satisfies theCourt a reasonable cause under Section 21(3) of the Act, for not makingapplication within the time. He further submits that the petitioner failed to makecontents madein the counter affidavit, submits that, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the decision of Suryadev Rai Vs Ramchandar[Rai^,][ held][ that][ if][ the]petitioner maderepresentation/application after one year from the date ofcause of action, need not be entertained unless the petitioner satisfies theCourt a reasonable cause under Section 21(3) of the Act, for not makingapplication within the time. He further submits that the petitioner failed to make a request in her application the reason for not approaching[the][ Court from][ the]date of cause of action, which arose in the year 1993.[He][ further][ submits][ that]the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.288,[dated][ 17.11.1986]governing rules with regard to revision of pay scales and as per the Rule 4,sub-rule7,in a case of date of incrementin the existing scale of pay ofgovernment employee is altered, one has to exercise option within a period ofone month from the date of the order. But in the present case, the petitionernot made any option, even though the rules are made long back. He furthersubmits that the APAT vide order dated 16.05.2019 made in O.A.No.815 of2019,directedthe respondents3 and4toreconsidertheclaimofthepetitioner for fixation of her basic pay by disposing of her representation dated21.05.2019 and 25.02.2019 within a period of eight[weeks][ from][ the][ date][ of]receipt of the order. As per the directions of APAT, the representation of thepetitioner wasconsideredandthepetitioner wasalsoinformedthattherequestwasnotfeasibletoconsideratthisjuncturevideProcs.Rc.No.5/HM/2019,dated12.06.2019.Therefore,learnedAssistantGovernment Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.

8. Perused the record.

rd

9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 3respondent has fixed the pay of the petitioner vide Proc.Rc.No.4/2017, datedrespondent has fixed the pay of the petitioner vide Proc.Rc.No.4/2017, dated

31.01.2017.Immediately,thepetitionerhasmadearepresentationon03.02.2017 within the stipulated time as per law and exercised her option forpay fixation date as 01.06.1987 and also brought to[the][ notice][ of][ the][ DEO.]Thereafter, the said DEO has issued Lr.No.2089/A4/2014,[dated][ 06.05.2017]addressed to the Headmaster recommending to take necessary steps aboutpay fixation date of the petitioner.

10. Having regardto the facts andcircumstancesof the[case]andonconsidering the submissions of both the learned counsels,[this][ Court]is of theopinion that, the petitioner has exercised her option for pay fixation within thestipulated time and material papers also filed with regard to the representationmade by the petitioner and the said District Educational[Officer][ has][ issued][ the]letter recommendingto take necessarysteps.Further,inthisregard,therespondents while relying on the reminders dated 25.02.2019[and][ 21.05.2019]came to a conclusion that the petitioner has exercised her option for payfixation, beyond the stipulated period, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, thisCourt is inclined to allow the writ petition.considering the submissions of both the learned counsels,[this][ Court]is of theopinion that, the petitioner has exercised her option for pay fixation within thestipulated time and material papers also filed with regard to the representationmade by the petitioner and the said District Educational[Officer][ has][ issued][ the]letter recommendingto take necessarysteps.Further,inthisregard,therespondents while relying on the reminders dated 25.02.2019[and][ 21.05.2019]came to a conclusion that the petitioner has exercised her option for payfixation, beyond the stipulated period, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, thisCourt is inclined to allow the writ petition.

11. Accordingly,theWritPetitionisallowed.TheimpugnedProc.Rc.No.5/HM/2019, dated12.06.2019 issued by the3^'^ respondentishereby set aside.Further, the3^*^ respondentis directedtosanction oneadditional increment belong to B.Ed., qualification[with][ effect][ from][ 01.06.1987]

at basic pay at Rs.610/- instead of basic pay at Rs.590/- witheffect from 01.06.1986, with all consequential benefits.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,if any,shall stand closed.

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO//TRUE COPY//ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, State of AndhraPradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, State of AndhraPradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt, of AndhraPradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt, of AndhraPradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.

3. Z.P.P.High School, Siddavaram, Rapuru Mandal,SPSR Nellore District.SPSR Nellore District.

4. The District Educational Officer, SPSR Nellore Dist at Nellore.

5. The Dy. Director, District Treasury Office, SPSR Nellore Dist. At Nellore.

6. One CC to Sri Eadara Peddanna, Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP for Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

8. Andhra Pradesh.Andhra Pradesh.j^o^CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of

9. Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.6866 of 2020

ALLOWING THE W.P.WITHOUT COSTS

Oa:0 5 FES 2025mCurreni Section.