HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

Between:

The Commissioner of Police,

Vijayawada City Police, Vijayawada,

Krishna District and 3 others

.....PETITIONERS

AND

P. M. Babji

.....RESPONDENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.06.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

&

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No

fair copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

_______________________

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + WRIT PETITION No. 5756 of 2021 % 24.06.2025 Between:

The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District and 3 others .....PETITIONERS AND P. M. Babji .....RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri R. S. Manidhar Pingali AGP for Services Counsel for the Respondent : Sri B. Rajesh Kumar < Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. (2012) 8 SCC 417 2. (2016) 14 SCC 267 3. (2009) 3 SCC 475 4. (2006) 11 SCC 709 5. (2014) 8 SCC 892 6. (1994) 2 SCC 521

7. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18

8. (2014) 8 SCC 883 9. (2015) 4 SCC 334

10. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI &

THE HON’BL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No. 5756 of 2021 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri R. S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for the petitioners and Sri B. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, appearing through virtual mode.

2. The respondent – P. M. Babji was the applicant in O.A.No.2401 of

2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’). The petitioners were the respondents therein.

3. The respondent herein shall be referred to as the ‘applicant’ and the petitioners as ‘petitioners’.

4. The applicant joined in service as Police Constable on 13.07.1984. He submitted his resignation which was accepted with effect from 08.11.1994 by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. Subsequently, he made a representation to the Government in the year 1998 and accepting the request as per the representation, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2396, Home (Police-D) Department, dated 30.11.1998, and permitted the applicant to withdraw his resignation on humanitarian grounds as a special case and directed for his reappointment as Police Constable subject to Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (in short ‘Rules 1996’). At the time of his reappointment, his pay was fixed basing on his last pay i.e., the amount last paid to the applicant prior to his resignation. At the time of retirmement of the applicant on attaining the age of superannuation, the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city passed the Order dated 10.05.2017 in D.O.No.457/2017/C.No.2062/A4/2017 refixing the applicant’s pay with effect from 30.06.2017 and while sending the pension papers to the District Audit Officer, State Audit, Krishna, Machilipatnam, Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city, vide his letter dated 25.06.2017 informed that the applicant’s pay was refixed and the applicant had to pay Overdraft (in short ‘OD’) amount of Rs.12,34,303/-, which was asked to be deducted from his gratuity, commutation and pension.

5. Questioning the aforesaid action, the applicant filed O.A.No.2401 of

2017.

6. Petitioners filed their counter in the O.A. Their case was that refixation of the applicant’s pay on his reappointment was under mistake. The applicant was not entitled for refixation of pay, giving the benefit of the previous service, prior to resignation, but it being reappointment subject to Rule 30 of the Rules 1996, the service rendered prior to resignation shall be forfeited under the Government. The reappointment was to be treated as first appointment. That mistake was corrected and the appli