ORDER

In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioner is challenging the Memo No.12024/Ser.III (1)/2009 dt.20.10.2009 and its consequential Memos dt.13.02.2013 and 12.03.2013 of the 4 th , 3 rd and 1 st respondents respectively as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules and in violation of the Constitutional provisions and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to declare the commencement of probation as 01.09.2004 and declare the probation accordingly and release the increments due on 01.09.2006 and 01.09.2007 with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders.

2.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR) are that the petitioner was selected by the District Selection Committee as a Typist in the backlog vacancy meant for orthopedically/visually handicapped candidates vide proceedings No.A1/1431/2003 dt.16.08.2004 of the District Collector, Hyderabad after due selection process. The petitioner was allotted to the 1st respondent office and appointment order dt.26.08.2004 was issued subject to the condition of the petitioner passing Telugu Typewriting Higher Examination within a period of two years from the date of reporting for duty. The petitioner joined service on 01.09.2004. It is submitted that the petitioner’s probation was initially for a period of two years which was extended twice by a period of six months each and thus, the petitioner’s probation was to be completed on or before 01.09.2007. The petitioner submits that he has appeared for the Typewriting Telugu Higher Examination in August, 2007 before the expiry of probation period, but the results were declared on 09.10.2007, i.e., 40 days after 01.09.2007. He submits that the increments during the relevant period i.e., after two years of completion of probation were not released due to non-acquiring of necessary qualification. But after obtaining the necessary qualification, the petitioner made a representation for release of the increments. The Government has issued a clarification to the effect that under Rule 16(h) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the date of commencement of the petitioner’s probation is revised as 09.10.2007 and that his probation was declared with effect from 03.09.2009. It was further held that since he did not acquire the necessary qualification within two years from the date of reporting for duty, he is not eligible for increments. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition (TR) has been filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant rules, i.e., Rule 16(f) and Rule 16(h) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and Note (1) under the category of Typists in Annexure I read with Rule 6(1) of the Telangana Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 to submit that the petitioner is eligible for the increments after declaration of probation after acquiring the necessary qualification, i.e., 09.10.2007. He further submitted that non-payment of increments permanently amounts to major punishment and therefore, the same could not have been imposed without conducting due enquiry and therefore, such an order should be set aside.

4.

Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and also supported the impugned order. He submitted that the petitioner has not acquired the necessary qualification as per the condition imposed in the appointment order and therefore, drawing the power under Rule 16(h) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the Government has changed the date of commencement of the probation and also held that the petitioner is not eligible for increments for the said period.

5.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the condition of his