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

2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 2376

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.15629 of 2022

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to declare Memo No.288/E1/2015 HM & FW (E1) Department, dated 10.12.2015 issued by the 1st respondent, and consequential Memo No.13186/A2/2009, dated 18.01.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, which was communicated to the petitioner through the 3rd respondent by Memo No.778/E/2016, dated 04.03.2016 as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violating principles of natural justice and set aside the same and issue consequential directions, directing the respondents to forthwith release all monetary benefits to the petitioner by giving effect to the Proceedings No.1342/E/GAC/2005-1, dated March, 2010 issued by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of Proceedings No.16748/Accts.1/2015, dated.16.11.2005 issued by the

2nd respondent…..”

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(i) The petitioner possessed a Diploma in Lab Technician, Medical Health, from CSI Hospital, Bangalore in the year 1971 and he was appointed as a Lab Technician on 04.01.1983 under the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.06.2004. In pursuance of the representations made by the Andhra Pradesh Medical & Laboratory Technicians' Association on 01.09.1984 as well as Andhra Pradesh N.G.Os Association on 03.02.1984, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.143 M & H Dept. dated 26.02.1985 revising the pay scales of Lab Technicians Grade-l, and Grade II notional with effect from 01.04.1978 with monetary benefits from the date of issuing of the orders.

(ii) At the time of issuing the aforesaid GO Ms No.143 and prior to the petitioner’s retirement, he was getting a pay scale of 450-700 i.e., scale of Laboratory Technician, Grade-II and the same was revised to 500-800 and in view of the fact that the said revised pay scales were based on the revised pay scale recommendation effected/initiated with effect from 01.04.1998. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 16.11.2005 for refixation of the pay of the petitioner, stating as follows :-

“…….. the matter has been examined in detailed with reference to the orders issued vide this office proceedings 1st cited, the request of the individual is concerned and hereby ordered that Sri A.Swamy Das (Retd.) Lab Technician, Dr. BRKR Govt. Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad, who was appointed as Lab Technician and allowed the scale of pay Rs. 450-700 be allowed in the revised scale of pay Rs.500-800 in the RPS, 1978 from the date of issue of pay Rs.500-800 in the R.P.S. 1978 from the date of issue of the Government Orders i.e., with effect from 26-2-1985 on par with Lab Technician Grade-II working in the counterpart department.

The Principal, Dr.BRKR Government Ayurvedic College, Hyderabad, is therefore requested to refix the pay of individual and draw and disburse the consequential difference of pay and allowances thereon to him.

Sri A.Swamy Das, Lab Technician (Retd.) is informed that any amount paid in excess to him due to erroneous refixation of his pay in revised scale of Rs.500-800 in the Revised Pay Scale, 1978 is liable to be recovered from his pensionary benefits at any time and without any notice thereon whenever such irregularity comes notice.”

(iii) In pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings dated

16.11.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in March 2010, appointing the petitioner, by allowing RPS-1978 of Rs.500-800 with effect from 26.02.1985 and also revising the annual grade increments and by fixing in RPS 1986-1993 and 1999 and calculated the scale of pay after adding the annual grade increments of the revised pay scales, as stated above in G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 26.02.1985. Even though the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in March 2010 as directed by the 2nd respondent, the authorities have not given effect to the said proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent.

(iv)

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top