ORDER

: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Samhitha Nimmala, learned counsel representing Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed initially assailing the order of punishment dated 28.02.2025 whereby the respondents having revoked the order of suspension had passed an order of penalty with stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner.

3. When the writ petition came up for consideration before this Bench at the first instance on 06.01.2026, in the midst of the arguments, the learned counsel representing the petitioner contended that in the present writ petition he is restricting his claim only so far as the relief sought for in paragraph No.41 of the writ petition is concerned and he is not pressing the other releifs sought for in the writ petition for which he has reserved his right to avail statutory remedies available to the petitioner. The relief sought for in paragraph No.41 is for a direction to the respondents for grant of two annual increments which fell due during the period of suspension i.e., the one which fell due in October, 2023 and the other in October, 2024.

4. The reason for seeking such a relief was the denial of the benefit of increment during the suspension period and simultaneously proceeding with implementation of the order of punishment of further stoppage of two annual increments or that which fell due in October, 2025 and which now would fall due in October, 2026.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner, at the outset, submits that as an implementation of the order of punishment, the consequence that is now reflecting is the petitioner being deprived of four annual increments starting from October, 2023 onwards whereas the actual punishment is only for stoppage of two annual increments. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/High Court was that when the suspension order was revoked, the period of suspension has been ordered to be treated as duty period only for pensionary benefits without any monetary benefits, which includes the non-grant of annual increments during the said period. However, the two years would be counted for the purpose of counting the length of service in the course of determining the pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the respondents/High Court referred to certain instructions reflected in The Telangana Fundamental Rules of Note 5(a) under F.R. 24 which, for ready reference, reads as under:

“If a Govt. Servant is suspended for misconduct, the period of suspension and period of service preceding the suspension should not be counted towards period of service necessary to earn increment”.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/ High Court is that once when the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and on placing the employee under suspension, during the period of suspension, all that the employee would get is subsistence allowance and that will determine as to how the period of suspension is finally treated on the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings is culminated on the charges being proved and the petitioner being found guilty of the charges levelled and has also been inflicted with a major punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. In the circumstances, on the revocation of the suspension, the petitioner would only be entitled for the subsistence allowance that he/she has received during the suspension period and the period would be counted as period spent on duty only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and it cannot be extended by giving the benefit of annual increment in