High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.149O5 of 2O21 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief: "... declaring the Proceedings No-264/ Pre-AuditlGazl2O2l ' dated 3O.04.2021 and Lr.No.137/Pre-AtdtlGazl2O2l' dated 15.06.2021 as arbitrar5r, illegal and violative of Art'14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides the UGC regulations and by nuliifyrng the same drrect the respondents to {ix the Petitioner pay @ Rs. 16,350/- as on 3O.10.1999 and@ Rs, 17'300/- as on 30-1O- 2OO0 in terms of fixation letter No 545/UAD/G dated 10-04-2001 and pay cumulative arrears of in service pay and allowalces' and re-ftx pension and pensionar5r benehts and pay all arrears with interest @ l2c'/o from 30- 10- i999 till actual payment" '" 2) Heard Ms. A.V.S. Laxmi, Iearned counsel for the petitioner' Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, Iearned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.l, and learned Governmcnt Pleader for Higher Iiducation appearing for respondent No.2' 3) Learngd counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Telugu Lecturer in 1989' thereafter promoted as Reader on 30'10 1991 and lastly as Professor on 30.1O.1999. As per the Order No'545/UAD/G' dated 17 .O2.2OOL, issued by respondent No' t his pay was hxed at Rs.16850/- from 30.1O.1999 in the pavscale of Rs'1640O-450- 2O900-5OO-2 24OO l-, and as on 30.10'2000 his pay was hxed at -2 PK, J vlt 14905 2021 l representalio Rs. 1 7,3011/ _ Subsequently, he was retired fron: service i r the year 2011. Ilou,r:.,er, after the re rement, he noticrcl thlt as on 30.10. 1999 Lrrs pay was mentioned as "" *" 1c,4oo/- i,isread or Rs.16,8s0,,_ ..,, ," ": "::"::^: on 30 i0 2000 his pay r'''as merttioned as Rs. r6,g5oi ,,,,,,.",t 1 of Rs. 1Z,3OO/_. Due to the sail ,Ji"fi:rence of one increnenl,. the petitioner has sustained huge finencial loss during h s service. Therefore, petitioner niarft severai n s; to respondent No. I to correct the :rror eind pay the difference zrn oLnt in pay and pensionary benelirs. Finallv, on O1.O4.2021 thr: p,etitioner gave the represen tatior:, urrder ItTI Act, to the publ;c Reli:tions Officer to provide co PY of scale s a tement order wherebl h s pz ry was fixed at Rs.16,850 /_ from 30. 1C. 1999 and also a copy cf Service Book as to where his par. was [i:;ed after his retiremr:nt. IJr.rt, vide letter dated 30.O4.2O2t he q,.ts irrlormed that the recc rc. s tertaining to fixation of pay o1_ pt:tition,:r r>n his appointment as p:.r.,fessor are not available as 20 yr:ars a re lapsed and most of t.rem r{,ere eaten away by termites. The petiLi,rr er was further inforrrecl llLe t the pre_audit section has verifir:d the prr.r ancl ailowances Re gi.:ter at that point of time and the revision r fixation was rocr)rdeC therein and on promotion of lhe :eti ioner, as on 30. 10. 1!)9rJ, r..s pay was fixed at Rs.16,400/_ i.e. minrlum scale at that poirt vr:Ls Rs.16,2O O/- only. Further, it r.r.as ir:fc,rrted that the Servicr: Ikrcl of the petitioner was sent to pe1si6 I Ij( cLion _ / l( J- PK, J wp r49O5_2O21 after retirement of the petitioner on 3r.r2.2orr. Learned counsel has further contended that even to the representation of the petitioner dated 18.O5.2021 also the respondent No.l had given the reply dated 15.06.2021 stating that the documents pertaining to pay hxation issued by respondent No. 1 are not traceable. In these circumstances, the learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondents to hx the pay of the petitioner @ Rs.i6,850/- as on 30.10.1999 and Rs.17,300/_ as on 30.1O.2000 in terms of hxation Ierter No.545 /UAD / c, dated 10.04.200 1 and pay cumulative arrears to the petitioner along with interest @ l2%o per annum from 30.10.1999. 4l Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the petitioner was retired from service on 3l.l2.2Oll and as per the records of the University, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 16,400/- as on 30.1O.1999 on promotion as professor. Further, the petitioner . was drawing the pay of Rs. 16,200l_ as on 30.10.1999 as per the Revised Scales of pay approved by the State Audit. However, the petitioner was promoted as professor in the scale of Rs-l64oo-22400/- on 30.r0.1999 vide proceedings dated 17.O2.2OO1 which became final and the same is binding on the petitioner. Therefore, now after a lapse of 20 years, the petitioner had no right to claim higher pay fixation from 3O.10.1999. As the 4 PK, J \\ r- 1z+905 2O2t t petitioner \,tsi already drawing the pay of Rs.161)007 - (as per RSp_ 1996) as on tfiat date, his pay was fixed at Rs.I6,43Cl , which is the minirrn,n ir)ale attached to the post of protss,rr irr the time scale of Rs. 154 )r)_224OO/_as on 30.10.1999 as pr:r UGC c,ry scales 1996. Thr:rt.fore , the petitioner is not entitled for Rs. t(,li5O/_ as on 30.1O.19!r9. Learned Standing Counsel has iurtlLer. r:cntended that the staternent produced by the petitioner purp,tr:e1 to have been issuerl l>v the pre_Audit Ofhce is not in acc,lrcl€ n(.e ryith law and UGC Fat U;:rles. Learned Standing Counsel has; stre_iuously contended tirtil. (he petitioner has retired in the ye:Lr 2ol1 11cl after a lapse of lr).,,631-,;, he cannot claim higher pay hxatiorr. Therefore, it is prayed to cl:Ls;r.eiss the writ petition. 5) This rlour-r has taken note of the submissions r,tirde by respective ccurls( I anrJ perused the material on record. 6) A peru sz: I c f the material on record. reveals t,tsrat, arlrrrr ttedly, the petitione r rvz,s.. 1s[j1sd from the services of tre i_esp,::tdent- Universit5r in ter: r ear 2Ol1 whereas the present u.rit per ition is filed in the yca r I )i)2 1 raising dispute with regard to pa.r i-<ation pertaining to the I ear 1999. Therefore, there is an zrbnorrni Ll delay on the part of tlte 1>r:titioner in approaching this Court. 7) In simil;rr crrcumstances, the Division Bench of th.s C rrrrt in Writ Appeal N.rs I( 60 of 2Ot8 and 593 of 20]6, dated I ll. I2.2021, -5 PK, J wp l49O52O2l f I ,4,- has held that the deiay of frve to eighteen years, in preferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be treated as inordinate. In the present case also, as stated supra' there is a delay of more than ten years on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. Hence, this Court does not hnd any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delaY. 8) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No CoStS. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA S ISTANT REGIS TRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 M) -fJ One CC to M/s A.V.S. Laxmi, Advocatqlqlp'C^l il; cc io'sii-cH..rrgrnnatha Rao' sctoPugl Yffi dd i; ii.r.-GCf""t Hish Education' High co at Hyderabad[OUT] Two CD CoPies CHS urt for the State of Telangana' HIGH COURT DATED:1110412A25 ORDER WP.No.14905 ot 2021 J o o L 6 r r'E 5;. ( o 1 ,),rlJtl 2 * o t ; r- -,:i i$ ,5 DISMISSING ITHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 a \) d 6 1 :::.