ORDER :

As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts in these two writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore W.P.(AT) No.323 of 2021 is taken as lead case and the facts therein are referred to for convenience.

The petitioner joined as Reserve Sub Inspector in A.P.S.P. Battalions in the year1977. Later, he appeared for Group-II examination conducted by the APPSC and was selected as Civil Sub Inspector and joined on 21.09.1985. Later the petitioner was promoted to the higher posts from time to time and posted at different places in different districts and now he is working as Superintendent of Police (Intelligence)((Waiting). It is further stated that one Mr. B. Chande Naik, who was working as Superintendent of Police (Non Cadre), Ongole, also originally joined in the police Department as RSI and later joined as Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) and he belonged to ST. He was given promotions from time to time not on regular line but basing on Rule of reservation and due to that he became senior to the petitioner and also he made representation to step up his pay on par with that of the petitioner.

While the matter stood thus, without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned order vide Memorandum Rc.No.1318/G3/2015 dated 30.05.2016, wherein, certain directions were given to the 4th respondent that while fixing the pay to make some corrections as per rules. The 4h respondent and the Principal, PTC Ongole are also directed to take further action. Due to the same, the petitioner was informed that his pay would be revised. In view of the directions contained in the said impugned Memo, the Service Book of the petitioner will be sent to all the places where the petitioner worked for making necessary corrections. Release of his retirement benefits including pension will be unduly delayed due to the same for no fault on his part. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 in WP(AT) No.323 of 2021 denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the petitioner resigned to his job on 20.09.1985, later he made a representation to the Government requesting to withdraw his resignation, and after careful examination of the matter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.149 Home (POLICE.D) Department, dated 13.02.1990, wherein it is stated that the Government have examined the requests of Mr J.Hathi Ram and Mr. P.Arun Kumar and they accordingly permit for withdrawal of their resignations under rule 39(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Rules for the limited purpose of protection of pay as Sub Inspector (Civil). Accordingly, the petitioner joined in service on 21.09.1985 and the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016. It is further stated that on 19.04.2017 the Addl. Director General of Police, CID, A.P., Vijayawada has stated that the petitioner who retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.12.2016, has submitted representation for sanction of notional increment normally due to 01.01.2017 under Rule 32 (IV) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits, subject to the condition that this should not be considered for any other purpose.

5. On hearing, this Court observed that though the petitioner made several representations to the 3rd respondent on 6.6.016 and 6.9.2016, since no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner was come to an understanding that his pay would be revised and the amounts said to have been drawn by the petitioner in excess would be recovered from his salary. The petitioner was due to be r