The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA Ii- TRTHIK WRIT PETITION lTRl No.1778 OIr 1rO17 ORDER: This Writ Petition (TR) is hled seeking the fo >wing reliel "...to dire,ct the respondents partianlarlg respondetll pag of the opplicant from the cadre of Head. Constatt promotionaL/ regular tncrements and DA regularLg lb' entitled end see lhat he is paid more than his batch 'rtt Si G.Ctollct Reddg, PC No.821, (2) Si M.D.Taraq, ' B.Gopal, P.C No.645 and (4) Mohan Rao, P.C No.842 .'l of Head Constable titl date atld grant him alL conseq,, includingl arrears of pag and altoutances pagable to hirt such pag ftxation/ grariing increments and DA withiL t and to pass sttch other order or orders...o -o.3 to ftx tlrc : bg granting tuhiclt he ts es namelg (1) : No.823, (3) tn tle cqdres 'ntia! benejits cotlsecluent to spectfied title

2. Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel ir )pearing for lhe petitioner, and learned Government Pleader fo r lervice s (Home) , appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits 1l at the petitioner was initially appointe d as Armed Reserve (A ! r Constable on

20.07.1976, and was subsequently, transferred 'r the Civil Police Department on 15.03.1983, wherein, he secur( r promotions as Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector a-nd S ub inspector of Police on 18.06. 1999, ll.06.2007 and 21.O9.'.)t),3, respectively. Thereafter, lhe petitioner had retired from servicr in the cadre of Sub Inspector of Police, on 31.05.2014, on attir ning the age of superannuation. It is further submitted tha. tl-re individuals appointed as Armed Reserve Constables along \v 1 r the petitioner, o PK, J w- P.(TR) No. I 7 7 8 of 20 1 7 viz., Mr. G. Challa Reddy, pC 821; Mr. Md. Tharaq, pC 823; Mr. B. Gopal, PC 645; and Mr. Mohan Rao, pC g42, were also transferred as Civil Police Constables along with the petitioner, and while in serwice, they were drawing a higher pay than the pecitioner herein. It is also submitted that the petitioner secured promotion to higher cadres on i8.06.1999 and 11.06.2007 , but the aforesaid individuals were promoted to the said cadres during the years 2OO2 and 2010, respectively. As such, the petitioner is not only entitled for hxation of his pay on par with his batch mates, but he is entitled to receive a higher salary, equivalent to three increments, than that of his batch mates. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his representation to responden8 No.3 on 16.12.2O13. However, no action has been taken thereon so far. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the respondents to fx the petitioner,s pay in the cadres of Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector of pohce, on par with his batch mates.

4. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing for respondents submits that the petitioner,s 2nd annual grade increment was duly extended and sanctioned on 16.02.1929, and since then, his increments were sanctioned periodically up to the year 2OO3, during which period, he was initia-lly placed under 3 PK, J /.P.(TR)No. 1778 of 2O 1 7 suspension and was later awarded the punishmer t of 'RTSP by (1) stage for a period of (1) year with effect on future increments and pension', trcating the suspension period frort

29.03.2003 to

25.07 .2OO3 as 'Not on duty' vide proceedings c i ted 1 1.1O.2004. Subsequently, on considering his appeal, the saic. runishment rvas modified to that of 'PPI for ( 1) year without :ffect on future increments and pension', treating the suspen s on period from

29.O3.2OO3 Lo 25.07 .2OO3 as 'Not on dut5r'. As su r h, his increment for the year 2OO4 was alone not sanctioned, an: his subsequcnt increments from the year 2005 were salctioned rt: glarly.

5. It is further submitted,that the petitioner 'as promoted as Head Constable on accelerated promotion on 18 (

6.1999, and his pay was accordingly hxed at Rs.2,750/-, w.e.f.,

8.06.1999, vide D.O.No.940/1999 dated 22.10.1999. However', ris batch mates could not be promoted to the post of Head (l rnstable til1 the completion of their (24) years of service. As su: r, they were the sanctioned Special Promotion Post Scale - II increr rent in the cadre of Police Constable, which u,as not sanctioned ir the case of the petitioner, as he rvas already promoted as Head lonstable. It is further submitted lhat the petitioner was prom. -ed as Assistant Sub Inspector on O5.O7 .2OO7, whereas, his bz :ch mates were promoted to the said post during 2OO9 /2OlO < nly, and in the 4 PK, ,) W.P.(TR)No. 1778 of 201 7 meantime, they were appointed to Special Grade post and sanctioned Special Grade promotion increment in the cadre of Head Constable. However, since the petitioner had not completed (8) years of service in the cadre of Head Constable, prior to his promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector, he was not sanctioned the Special Grade Promotion increment. It is further submitted that the petitioner was later promoted as Sub Inspector of police on

26.09 .2013 after completion of six years of service in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector as on O5.O7.2O13. Accordingly, he was sanctioned the Special Grade Pay Scale increment in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector, and thereafter, his pay has also been reviewed from the date of his appointment to Special Grade pay Scale, i.e., 05.07.2013, and his pay has also been regulated vide progeedings in D.O.No.l4l/2014, C.No.1653/pS-tncrts./2014, dated Ol.O4.2Ol4. It is further submitted that the pay anomaly arose initially when the petitioner's second increment was postponed up to 16.02.1979, and due to his accelerated promotion as Head Constable prior to completion of (24) years of service, and the subsequent promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector, before completion of (8) years of service. Therefore, there is no irregularity while sanctioning the increments to the petiLioner. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 5 PK, J V. P. (TR) No. 1 778 oJ 2 O 1 7

6. This Court has taken note of the rival subl issions made by learned counsel for the respectlve parties and pell sed the material on record. 7 . Admittedly, r','hile the petitioner was !\ ( rking as Police Constable, he was initially imposed wi[h punishr rent of 'RTSP by (1) stage for a period of (1) year with effect on i iture increments and pension', which rvas later modihed, in the a: real preferred by him, to that of 'PPI for (1) year without effect on f rture increments and pension' and the suspension period fro:

29.03.2003 to

25.O7.2OO3 was dul1- treated as 'Not on du[' As such, his increment for the yeat 2OO4 was not san( -ioned, but his subsequent increments from the year 20O5 werr: duly sanctioned. I.t is evident from the record that the petitioner rvrr I promoted to the post of Head Conslable on 18.06. 1999, i.e., r: rch prior to his batch mates, who secured promotion to the satr post, only after completion of (24) years of their service, thereby, r raking them fully eligible for the Special Promotron Post Scaie - Ii increment in the cadre of Police Conslable. However, the said ir :rement was not sanctioned to the petitioner, as he was alrea,l r promoted to a higher post prior to completion of (24) years of se I rice- Likewise, in the cadre of Head Constable, his batch mates c: .:npleted (8) years of service and rvere sanctioned the Special irade Promotion : I .t 6 PK, J W.P.(TR)No. 1778 of 201 7 increment, before their promotion as Assistant Sub Inspectors during the years 2oo9-2o10. The records further reveals that the Special Grade Pay Scale increment was later sanctioned to the petltioner in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector upon completion of (6) years of service in the said cadre, and his pay fixation was duly reviewed and regulated from 05.07.2013. Therefore, this Court iqjrf the considered view that the pay discrepancy between the. petitioner and his batch mates arose due to the postponement ,of. his increment in the year 2OO4, and also his accelerated promotions, which e>gcluded him from enjoying certain increments, viz., Speiial Grade Promotion increment arrd Special Grade pay Scale increment, which,were duly granted to his batch mates.

8. For the foregoing discussion, this Court hnds no merit in the present writ petition, and thus, it is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (TR) is dismissed Mrscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANTJ,EGISTRAR .9- SEC.TTON OFFICER One CC to SRI T. P. ACHARYA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services (Home) High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 BM MP HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ORDER WP(TR).No.1778 of 2017 o() a * i I Tls 1 5 8i 't u 5 I 7- * ) TC DrsMrsslNc THE WRlr PETIION (TR) WITHOUT COSTS JK-r tf , /,e ,