HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.5835 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Miss Janaki, learned counsel representing Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing on behalf of 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 and annual increment for a period of two (2) years cumulative effect is bad arbitrary and illegal by setting aside the final order No.01/2(12)/2014-MDCL dt. 19/5/2015 of the 3^rd respondent herein and direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments of the petitioner with proper fixation by paying the concerned arrears 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 passed in W.P. No.15059 of 2008 and the 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 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: 16.09.2025 Skj Note: Registry is directed to append copy of the order of this Court dated 30.12.2022 passed in W.P. No. 15059 of 2008