SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA 
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
B.Krishna and Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No.24445 Of 2020 
Decided On : 18-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
For the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES I

The court mandates that administrative authorities must comply with directives issued by the Administrative Tribunal and uphold principles of natural justice, ensuring fair implementation of increments owed to employees.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Act, 2000 - Orders in O.A. No. 7862 of 2010 and W.P. No. 27283 of 2012 - Petitioners sought implementation of orders for release of periodical increments but were not granted those increments despite clear directives. Action of respondents found illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 2, 3, 13)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Implementing authority must make decisions in accordance with principles of natural justice and provide personal hearings to the petitioners. (Paras 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, initially appointed as Non-Public Health Workers, were denied periodical increments despite eligibility confirmed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. Writ petition filed due to non-compliance by authorities. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
The writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to implement the orders confirmed by the Tribunal and High Court regarding release of increments within two weeks, adhering to legal principles. (Paras 14)

Issues: Whether the non-implementation of Tribunal's orders and the denial of increments was arbitrary and illegal. The necessity of adherence to principles of natural justice in such decisions. (Paras 6, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that the respondents are bound to implement the earlier decisions and to act in accordance with principles of natural justice, allowing due opportunity to the petitioners before making decisions. (Paras 14)

Result: Writ petition allowed with directions for implementation.

Table of Content
1. claim for periodical increments (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. previous orders not implemented (Para 6 , 7)
3. counterarguments against petitioners (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's scrutiny of prior orders (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. order for implementation of tribunal decisions (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counsel for Service Matters of all Municipalities, Telangana, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders passed by the Honourable AP Administrative Tribunal in OA No.7862/2010 dt. 22/11/2010, the same has been confirmed by this Honble Court in WP No.27283/2012 dt.6/3/2018 for release of periodical increments from the date of filing of the OA is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to implement the orders passed by the Honourable AP Administrative Tribunal in OA No.7862/2010 dt. 22/11/2010 by releasing periodical increments from the date of filing of OA and pass...”.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief, is that the petitioners were initially appointed in the years 1986, 1987 as Non-Public Health Workers on daily wage basis in the 3rd respondent’s Municipality and later, extended minimum time scale but were not sanctioned periodical increments. The other workers who are working along with the petitioners were provided with the periodical increments by the 1st respondent vide memo dated 01.10.2010 as per the orders of the Tribunal held in OA No.7915/2002, dated 26.08.2002 and the same has been confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 27214/2005 and the Supreme Court. The petitioners filed O.A. No.7862 of 2010 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for release of increments from the date of payment of minimum time scale and the Tribunal passed order dated 22.11.2010 directing the respondents to grant annual grade increments to the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondents filed W.P. No. 27283 of 2012 before this Court challenging the said orders in O.A. This Court dismissed the same by directing the respondents to release annual grade increments to the petitioners. However, the respondents have not yet implemented the said orders till date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

4. I t is the specific case of the petitioners that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioners approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal vide O.A. No. 7862 of 2010 with prayer as under:

“… to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the periodical increments from the date of minimum time scale i.e. w.e.f. 9.2.1999 along with arrears as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the periodical increments from the date of payment of minimum time scale i.e. w.e.f. 9.2.1999 along with arrears and also to extend Revised Pay Scales of 2005, 2009”….

5. The relevant para Nos.4, 5, and 6 of the order in O.A. No.7862 of 2010, dated 22.11.2010 are extracted hereunder

“4. Admittedly, applicants' pay was fixed in the time scale, subject to regularization of their services. This question was considered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 7915/ 2002 and it was held that the applicants therein, who worked as NMRs in Rajendernagar Municipality and whose pay was fixed in the minimum time scale, were eligible for periodical increments. The said order of this Tribunal was upheld by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., by an order, dated 23.08.2006 in W.P.No.27214/ 2005. Similar order was also p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top