##PAGE1##

::1:: 2026:APHC:6534

APHC010562172024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 29457/2024

Between:

1. G MUNI VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O.G.VENKATA MUNI, AGED

63 YEARS, RETIRED ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (TRG)

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, AP,

VIJAYAWADA.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING, (EANDT)

DEPARTMENT, STATE OF AP, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP.

2. T HE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,

GOVERNMENT OF AP VIJAYAWADA.

...RESPONDENT(S):

::2:: 2026:APHC:6534

This Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by the Petitioners for the following relief:

to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of

Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondents in not

releasing and paying the increments from February 2017 to

February 2020 as illegal , arbitrary , violative of FR24 and

accordingly set aside the 2nd respondent Memo

C3/2188/2021 dated 18.11.2022 and consequentially direct

the respondents to release and pay the increments from

February 2017 to February 2020 by extending the benefits

of the final orders of this Honourable Court passed in

WP.No.45.S3/2021, dated 24.02.2021, WP No.9228/2021

dated 13.07.2021 and WP.No.28050/2021 , dated

28.04.2022 and pass

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel

for the respondents.

3. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the

respondents in not releasing and paying the annual increments for the

period from February 2017 to February 2020, which action is illegal and

arbitrary.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the 1^st respondent

vide G.O.Rt.No.72 dated 14.02.2017. Subsequently, the 1st respondent

revoked the suspension and reinstated the petitioner into service vide

::3:: 2026:APHC:6534

G.O.Rt.No.5 dated 23.01.2020. After his retirement, the 1^st respondent

issued G.O.Rt.No.63 dated 20.03.2024, framing three (03) Articles of

Charges against the petitioner. It is submitted that the annual periodical

increments due for the period from February 2017 to February 2020 are

liable to be paid to the petitioner, even during the period of suspension,

as the said increments were not withheld by any specific order of the

respondents. However, the 2^nd respondent issued Memo No.

C3/2188/2021 dated 18.11.2022 stating that the annual grade increments

from February 2017 to February 2020 would be considered only after

receipt of acquittal orders in the ACB case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, according to

F.R.24 of the A.P.Fundamental Rules, an increment shall ordinarily be

drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld, by an order of competent

authority.

6. The said issue was considered by this Court in order W.P.No.9228 of

2021 dated 13.07.2021, which reads as follows;

“this Court is of the opinion that as rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner FR-24 fell for consideration in

the Division Bench judgment i.e., W.P. No.6617 of 2004.

The Division Bench clearly held that order of withholding

increment is an exception rather than the rule and that the three

::4:: 2026:APHC:6534

increments can only be withheld on proof of case, unsatisfactory

service or bad conduct. It is also mentioned that such an order

should state the period from which it is withheld and whether the

postponement shall have the effect of withdrawal, postponing the

future increments also.

Ultimately, the learned Judges concluded that an order

holding the increment is in the nature of a penalty and can only

be issued if due process is followed.

The same is reiterated in the subsequent judgment of the

Bench and also of the learned Single Judge. This is applicable to

the present facts and nothing to the contrary was pointed out by

the re