High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in tfJlmO"'it filed therewith' the High C':urt may be pleased to declare t" c; ii*rt'rl'iilI' )os no'" (LEGAL-II) Department dated 01- 12_2OO4to the extent o, ,.n'o'"ri"i,Iiion ot nutorrtic Advancefi5nt licheme to all -biros-zoor 'i" illesal arbitrary and ranks of Police D"p,;[i:;i'';'"]i i"'e with..a corisequential direction to the -J unconstitutional and set "tiJ"'tn" the petitioner foi granting of Automatic respondents to consider in" "r'i' Advancement Scheme on ao*pr"tion of 16 years service in cadre of Police Constable in view of t"t;;tY';";;"'.r'r.", z+g1"f Andhra Pradesh f)olice Mannel on par witn others with all consequential benellls (As per court order ctalt>d 19-12-2024 Vide l'A'No'1 of 2024 in wP(TR) No'2549 of 2017) Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI' NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services (Home) The Court made the following: ORDER Y(n TIIE HONOT]RABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADIIAVI DEVT WRITPETITION(TR) NO.2s4 9 0F 2017 ORD ER In this Writ petition (TR), the petitioners are challenging G.O.Ms.No.265, Home (Legal-If Department, dt.01.12.2004 to the extent of implementation of automatic advancement scheme to arl ranks of Police Depar-tment only with effect from 0g.09.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of automatic advancement scheme on compretion of 16 years of service in the cadre of police Constable in view of exempting order No.74(5) of the Andhra pradesh police Manual on par with others with all consequentiar benefits and to pass such other order or orders. 2' Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition (TR) are that the petitioners were appointed as porice constables during the years 1995 1977 respectively. Subsequently, all the petitioners were promoted as Head constables, ASIs and SIs and also retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that a[ W.P.(TR) No.2549 ol:l0l 7 ) the petitioners corop leted 16 years of service in the category of Police Constable and rvert: entitled to Special Promotional Post Scale-I on completion of 16 'ycars as provided in D'O' No'653/2011 dt'23'rl3'2001' However, they we:r': not granted the said scale and therefore' one of the colleagues of the p':titioners' Sri Mohd' Naseeruddin' who retired as ASI, submitte'J a r':oresentation to the 3'd respondent on 30'03''2010 to consider his claim 'irr sanction of Special promotional Post Scale-I (SPP Scale-I) on ccrmpletion of 16 years of service in the category of'Police Constable. Vide o':der in D'O'No'981/2010 dt'10'05'2010' he was granted SPP Sca t':-I' Thereafter' the 1't petitioner also made a representatiorL to :he 3'd respondent on 10'01'2011 making a similar claim and also cited G'O'Ms'No'265 dt'Ol'12'2014 which exempted training course als': fbr availing the benefit of Special Promotional Post Scale-I. Horvevet ' in response' the I'r respondent issue:d Memo No.A2ll2l247l2t)'l dt'08'03'2011 rejecting the claim of the lu petitioner statinl; l'at though the petitioner has completed 1'5 years of service by I 6.Cr6 t991 , at that relevant point of time' tht:re was a condition to complete the training to be qualified to be promor.ed to such promotional pos;t. i.e., inclusion of the name in 'C' list' However' the said condition v'as relaxed by G'O'Ms'No'265 dt'01't2'2004' It is / Yo W.P.(TR) No.2549 of 20r 7 3 submitted that the petitioners cannot be penalised for the administrative delay on the part of the respondents in sending the petitioners for training within time. It is submitted that all the petitioners have completed RC test to function as Head constabres and that similarly placed persons who were appointed along with the petitioners were considered for grant of special promotional post scale even though they did not complete the training for incrusion of their names in the .c, list. Aggrieved by the action of the 3'd respondent, the petitioners submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent, but the same also met the same fate and trerefore, the petitioners filed o.A.No. 45g4 of 2014 before the Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same has been transfened to this Court and renumbered as W.p. (TR) No.2549 of 2017. Though initially there was a challenge to the impugned order by allowing the benefit granted under G.o.Ms.No.265 dt.0r.r2.2oo4, subsequently, vide orders in I.A.No.l of 2024, dt.lg.l2.2O2{ the prayer of the petitioners has been amended to declare G.O.Ms.No.265 dt-01.12.2004 to the extent of implementation of automatic advance scheme to all ranks of police Department only with effect fiom

08.09.2001 as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and to consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the / W.P.(TR) No.2549 ot 20l7 4 petitioners for grant of automatic advancement scheme on completion of 16 years of sen'ice in the category of Police Constable and to pass such other order or orclet's. Leamed cou rrsel for the petitioners submitted that not sending the

3. petitioners for treLitr:ng was due to the administrative delay caused by the respondents and the'refore' the petitioners cannot be found fault with and on completion of 16 years of service, they ought to have been given special promotic'nal post scale-I as was done in the case of liri' Mohd' Naseeruddin anii orhers. The copy of the order in the case of Sri Mohd' Naseeruddin is fil':d at page 26 of the writ papers' Challe'nging the implementation o f ' G.O.Ms'No' 265 dt'O I'12'2004 only with effect from

08.09.2001,1he,cre,sent writ Petition has been filed. The leam;d counsel for the petitirlne'rs submitted that the very same circumstances existed in the case of Sri l4ohd. Naseeruddin also, but the benefit has been extended to him, it'hereas it is denied to the petitioners herein

4. The 3,d resl,)ndent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 1't and 2nd respondetrt-s also, and it is averred therein that as per the service rules, only such o1.the persons who fulfilled all the 6 criteria mentioned in APPM Order No.74 are eligible for Special Promotional Post Scale-I Y W.P.(TR) No.2549 of 20t7 5 and one of the criteria is that a police constable should have successfully completed all in-service training courses for which he is nominated or sent in his service in a particurar rank. It is submitted that all the peiitiore.s have completed 16 years of service, but they have not undergone in-service training, i.e., pre_promotional training which is the main criteria for sanction of 16 years increment. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not sent to pre_promotional training due to non_ arising of vacancies of Head Constables and that G.O.Ms.No.265 dt.01.12.2004 was issued with effect from 0g.09.2001, i.e., the date on which the existing AppM was revised and approved by the Govemment in G.O.Ms.No.20t, Home (police.C) Department dt.08.09.2001. It is submitted that all the petitioners though have compreted their 16 years of service in the years l9gl, lgg2 and. l993,they were all promoted in the years 1gg5, L9g4 and 1993 etc., but since the order has become effective only from 0g.09.2001, they were not eligible for Special Promotional post Scale on their completion of 16 years in the years 1991, 1992, etc. In respect of the petitioners, junior Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin to whom scale was granted, it was averred that he has completed 16 years of service on 14.07.1991, but monetary benefit of SPP Scale was given to him with effect from 0g.09.2001 by oversight \ \ I t- l W.P.(TR) No.2549 of 20l7 a and, subsequelltly ol1 realising the mistake' the excess amoun': paid to 6 him has been recovered'

5.Heardthelt:amedcounselforthepetitionersandleamed Government Pleader for Home'

6. Having regartl to the rival contentions and the material cn record' this Court finds trrat by virtue of amendment to the pr'ryer' the petitioners ar,3 nor'l challenging the effective date of G'O Vts'No'265 d1.01.12.2004 to be fiom 08.09.2001 and not prior thereto' Though the petitioners are soeliing treatment on par with their junior 'Sri Mohd' promoted as Head Constable in the year 1993 and Naseeruddin who 'r'as monetary benefit under G'O'Ms'No'265 dt'Ol'lz2OO4 was p'iven with effect from (11.08,:1001, and the petitioners were similarly pJaced' this court finds that the excess amount paid to him by erroneous grant of promotion 1r'., 6.11'eadY been recovered' Further' it is observt'd that the benefit of specizrl promotional post scale without fulfilling the requisite criteria, i.e., existence of post and completion of th': training programme, wa s granted only on the basis of revised A"P' Police Manual and the t'ersons who have completed 16 years of service as police constable,s, but were not promoted to the post of Flead Constable / / W.P.(TR) No.2549 of 20t7 7 as on 08.09.2001 were given benefit, but not to the persons who were appointed earlier and who were promoted prior to the said date. Though there is challenge to the effective date of G.O.Ms.No.265 dt.Ol.IZ.2OO4 by subsequent amendment to the prayer, there is no counter affidavit filed by the respondents to the amended prayer in the Writ petition.

7. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the l,r respondent to consider the request of the petitioners to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.265 dt.01.12.2004 even to the persons whb have completed l6 years of service but have not completed the training due to the administrative delay, and were promoted subsequently but prior to 08.09.2001. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8 9 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ petition (TR) shall stand closed. SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY P TYREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, \

1. The Principal Secretary, Home (Ser'll) Department' Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, Lakidikapool' Hyderabad ' 3. The Superintendent of Police, Medak District at Sanga Reddy'' 4. The Accountant General, HYderabad.' ) .'P.51

5. One CC to lSRl. NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Advocate TOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GF'{or Home, High Court forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OLlTl

7. Two CD Copies KKS KKS s Y \ HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:191031',2Ct25 ) t , -z ORDER WP(TR).N o'.2549 of 2017 lrl'!, Nf, ") t;: i i-. .\!) I DISPOSING OF: THE WP(TR) WITHOUT GOSTS @j44#*