HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.26801 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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

“…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the 3^rd respondent herein in imposing the punishment of deferment of petitioner annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and for recovery of Rs.1,000/ is bad arbitrary and illegal by setting aside the final order No.P4/187(90)/2016-MYP-I, dt 8/12/2017 of the 3^rd respondent herein and consequential procs, dt 25/9/2018 of the 2^nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents not to effect the said punishment and pass...”

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated recent orders of this Court dated 19.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.26724 of 2019 and the order dated 16.09.2025 passed in W.P. No.1939 of 2021 on the basis of the said order dated 30.12.2022 passed in W.P. No.15059 of

2008.

4. The Relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 30.12.2022 passed in W.P. No. 15059 of 2008 is extracted hereunder “Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the length of services rendered by the petitioner, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the quantum of punishment of stoppage of annual grade increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years. However, it is made clear that this modification of punishment shall have prospective effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim the monetary benefits for the period prior to passing of this order”.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

6. I n view of the said submissions made by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.12.2022 passed in W.P. No. 15059 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________ MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 24.09.2025 Ktm Note: Registry is directed to append copy of the order of this Court