JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services III appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7647 of 2020.

3. The writ petition was filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants') to enhance the subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of pay from 28.04.2019 onwards in terms of Fundamental Rule 53, to release the arrears and to continue to pay the same at that rate.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 11.01.1999 in the office of the Deputy Educational Officer, Purchur and was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2013. While he was working as such, he was sent to judicial custody for more than 48 hours in connection with CR. No. 01/RCT-OGL/2019 on the allegation that he had demanded bribe amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant for processing the file pertaining to St. Arnold's English Medium High School, Medaramettla for opening of additional sections to classes 1 to V. in the said school, for which the complainant was the correspondent, and for handing over the order of the District Education Officer (DEO) according permission to open additional sections to classes 1 to V. to the complainant.

5. Since the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, the DEO, Prakasam District, Ongole, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule (8) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'Rules of 1991'), vide proceedings dated 30.01.2019, placed him under suspension indicating that he shall continue to remain under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings relating to the charges.

6. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition observing as follows :

"2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3. The counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that in similar matter, this Court by virtue of the orders in Writ Petition No. 15212 of 2019 has directed the respondents therein to pay 75% of wages as subsistence to the petitioner. The order reflects that this Court took into consideration the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 15212 of 2019, dated 30-09-2019, wherein a similar direction was made to the respondents. There is no dispute by the Government Pleader that this order covers the facts of the present case also.

4. Hence, in terms of the said order, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay 75% of wages as subsistence to the petitioner with effect from 28-04-2019.

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

7. Mr. K. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services III appearing for the appellants, submits that in view of Fundamental Rule 53 (1)(ii)(a)(iv), the petitioner is not eligible for subsistence allowance to the tune of 75%. It is submitted that without any discussion as to whether the order in W.P. No. 15212 of 2019 applies to the facts of the present case, the learned single Judge proceeded to issue a direction in terms of the order dated 30.09.2019 in W.P. No. 15212 of 2019.

8. Mr. P. Amarender, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, submits that vide G.O. Rt. 1846 General Administration (SC.D) Department, dated 23.08.2018, as available at page No. 33 of the material papers, the Government had enhanced the subsistence allowance of one Karanam Venkata Ranga Sai Kumar, Joint Secretary, from 50% to 75%, though he was under judicial custody exceeding 48 hours in a disproportionate assets case in Cr. No. 05/RCA-CIU-ACB/2017 registered under sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrup