The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. S. Dhanalakshmi, D/o late Sri J Ramakrishna.Rao Naidu Aoed about 83 vears. occ lnvestisator:i'ih;[;b)"o Ai; st't" Social welfare Board' 'nvi-'izrclrori, ''vlll-vlpiil.i Colonv rarnaka' Secunderabad' 'H-r?;;r;rd, Telanoana State . -T. Saroiini, D/o Sri P Venkatratnam. .Aged about 82 vears' Occ "5ili"'do"qi-wgirur.9 Board' Hvdirr'abad' Rl/o lnvestioator - ll (Retd.) o/o nlp i b:ii:5ibril i)'i A, srr""'i'iiug; Cotonv tr/alakpet' Hvderabad relansana State.

2. Smt. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 J . I 4 ^and 3[9&"J'3:""t'."1#,H"']]?:?:["'"i il1?,X?iJ'.,31?:":3:'f ',H:I"^?,ff Telanoana State. I[f "HH:i:c']:h"g'"J%11P,?sirssl;rr::T#"'l'i"'*ll[";31!"Tsu:ffi bv its rri n cr o3i .;3:!:t1ft ?iElSilT o*, o[ fll-d,lf 1 jrrd esh, Represen ted liXci'6Epr-,i',il"ni ior women, Children' Disabled il'#;liuif p:+iiilfl1trA"+m Samai Kalyan Bhavan B-12, Qutao lnstl[uilonar AIEi' r\Evv FJffi ,'**1,.qr#sE*lHnd:n ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be 5-9-2016 issued bY the 4th pleased to a) declare and u nconstitutional and b) illegal, respondent as irect the respondents to grant Automatic Advancement Scheme consequentlY d scale which is the scale of the Secretary with effect from i.e., 15 years introduction of Automatic Advancement scheme in the year 1981 and 22 yeats the proceedings dated arbitrary, discriminatorY I I I I I I i I I I scale as we' and accordingry fix their pay sare whire in service and arso rnc the pension and pay the arrears with interests c) by issuance of writ of Mandamus Counsel for the petitioner: SRI. J. SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4: Gp FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI ON No.37 t84 of 20L6 ORDER: This writ petition is Iiled seeking the following relief: "To declare the proceedlngs date 05'09'2016 i's,sued bg th.e respond.ent No'+ as itegal and prags to direct the 'rJtrr"'ai"u to grant Autoilatic Aduance-menL Scheme 't:::;;;;;"lai tuhich is tLte scate of the secretary ,itin- "fi.i" fr.* introduction of Automatic Aduanll;ment 3"i*ri"1i ir" gear 1s8i ind' i2 g.,o'" scale as uelt and accordinglg fa the pen"sioi oni pog the arears rtith interest". 2 J 1n Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners L,earned counsel for the petitioners would submit Petitioner FebruarY, 1958 and No.1 was appointed as Investigator petitioner No.2 was appointed as Senior Assistant in May' 1958 arrd promoted, to the post of Investigator in October' 1984' Ever since, the petitioners continued in the same post of Investigator' in the A.P. State Social Welfare Board' which is in the feeder category, without getting promoted to the post of Secretary' and retired in July, 1992 and October 1992 respectively' lt is further submitted that under the Recruitment Rules adopted and approved by both the Central Board and the State Government' the post of Secretary can be filled hrst by considering the claim of Z rnvestigators, second by_concerned officials from the Central Board and fina,lly by direct recruitment, the post of secretary was always filled up by the second mode-deputing persons from central Board as and when the post fell vacant, which was the first injustice towards the petitioners since they are the first ones that ought to be considered. It is further held that in the year 1996, aUDC who was not even in the feeder cadre for the post of SecretarJr, was promoted as Secretar5r, instead of considering the seniors, i.e., petitioners herein, which the petitioners did not chaJlenge at that time and a-lso held that two posts of Investigators in the State Board were abolished by the Centra_l Board uide proceedings dated 27.12.1977, however, the State Government ulde proceedings dated 12'03'1996 specifically stated that the incumbents holding the posts may continue to hold the same until their retirement; all PRCs too reflected that the post was in higher scale tharr UDC scale and that they continued as Investigators. 4' It is further contention of the petitioner that the Government of A.P canre out with a policy called Automatic Advatcement Scheme-where those eligible for promotion to next cadre but were not able to get promoted, would get higher scale; i.e., on 3 completion of seryice without promotion for 10 years, an employee would get next scale, on completion of 15 years-next promotional scafe of pay and 22 years-respondent No'2 promotional scale' provided that post is on the promotional channer of recruit rules and if no such post they will be given next higher scale' It is further stated that it is pertinent to note here is that while issuing recruitmentrulesandadoptingpension,etc.,theState Government specifrcally stated that all rules applicable for Stated Government Employees would be applicable for employees of the Board ald petitioner No'l continued in the same post from 1958 to 1992 i.e.,34 years and petitioner No'2 from 1964 to 1992 i'e'' 28 years making them entitled for the 15 years scale by 1973 and 1979 respectively, but the Automatic Advancement Scheme was introduced only in 1981 and they were given only the 10 years scale while the 15 years scale was not given' It is further stated that uide proceedings dated 07'03'1986' 5. the State Board granted 15 years scale stating that the 15 years scale would be applicable upon the Central Board's approva-l and the same was denied by the Central Board uide proceedings dated 21.O4.Ig87, which was conveyed by the State Board uide otdets J

4.. + dated 16.I2-L9BT to the petit;.oners and the sca_le was taken back and aggrieved by the Central Board,s order dated 16.12.19g2, tne petitioners {iled writ petition No. 1 1 139 of 2o 18 raising the issue that having given the 15 years scale, it cannot be taken back and in the said order it is a-forementioned that writ petition in 1gg2 stated that the State Board conveyed to the petitioners that they would receive the 15 years sca-le subject to the Central Board,s approval and therefore the petitioners cannot make a claim for the last 15 years scale as they were already informed about the scale u.as subject to the Centrai Board. It is further stated that the petitioners made representations to the State Board seeking ;ustice whey they were illegally denied the scale while those not even eligible / qualified were conferred with benefits; the State Board engaged in unnecessary correspondence despite the State Government's clear stance that a1l rules applicable to state employees are appricabre to employees of the State Board automatically which were left unanswered and thus petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act, which revealed that the Centra_l Board had alreadl, approved the Automatic Advancement in 2009 and this information was given in 5 2O13 alld the petitioners were asked to contact the State Board in this regard, since they were automatically entitled' Therefore, the petitioners sought sanction of promotional scale of pay and the central Board, uide letter dated 07.08.2015 instructed the State Board to refer to Central Board Ietter dated 29'07'2013 also d.irecting the Secretary of State Board Office to examine the case as its level. The State Board. uide letter dated 30.01.2016 stated that the petitioners were fully eligible for the same, in view of the automatic applicability of the scheme as all rules for state employees are applicable to State Board employees' It is further stated that the Central Board uide proceedings dated O5'O9'2016 rejected the claim of the petitioners, which is challenged in this Writ Petition based on two grounds. Firstly, the post of Investigators was long abolished, which is invalidated because the State Government uide ptoceedings dated 12'03'1996 explicitly stated that the petitioners were to continue as Investigators; and secondly that the earlier writ Petition was rejected and in view of the changed circumstances where the Central Board approved the Automatic Advancement Scheme for the State Board in 2OO9 and it is not open for the Central Board to which approved the same to 6 rely on the dismissar of the earlier writ petition a,d submits that once the approval was made in 2OO9, the petitioners would automaticaily be entitled for relief, as it would also go retrospectively and thus prayed to allow the present writ petition. 6. A perusal of the record discloses that during the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner No.1 expired. Docket proceedings reveals that on 23.06.2025, there is no r.epresentation on behalf of the Central Government and no counter has been filed and at request of learned Government pleader for Social Welfare for filing counter, matter was listed today. Even the matter was adjourned for filing the counter, however, no counter has been filed either by the centr.l Government or by the learned Government pleader for Social Welfare and even the name of Smt. Anjali Agarwal, is reflected as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4/Central Government, there is no representation on their behalf. Therefore, in view of non-filing of counter and in rriew of no representation on behalf of respondent No.4, this Court deems it appropriate to allou, the prayer of the petitioner. 7. In the result, the Writ petition is a,llorved with costs. Respondent Nos.l and 4 shall pay Rs.l,OO ,OOO/_ (Rupees One \ a' i I Lakh) each to the Telangana High Court Arlvocates ASsociation within a period of two weeks from the date of re-qelpt of a copy of this order. Respondents are also directed to grant Automatic Advancement Scheme i.e', 15 years scale which is the scale of the Secretary with effect from introduction of Automatic Advancement Scheme in the year 1981 and' 22 years scale as well and accordingly fix the pension and pay the brrears with interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in view of demise .of petitioner No'l during the proceedings, respondents are directed to pay the said amount to legal heirs of petitioner No l if any' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTIGE SUJOY PAUL -' ' -iEverlrH DAY oF JULY Two rHousAND AND TwENw FlvE ' MONDAY'THE MEMORAN DUM OF COSTS Rs. Ps. Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That Ge Resoondent Noa. 1&4 are directed to nru costs of Rs.1,00,000/- x 2 (RuPees Lakhs OnlY) in favour of the i*" Telanoana Hiqh Court Advocates Rssociation, High Court for the State of Telangana, Uign Court Buildings' Hyderabad. TOTAL 2,00,000-00 2,00,000-00 SD/. MALLIKARJUNA RAO STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1, The Chairperson, Telang ana State Social Welfa Gagan Vihar, Nam pally OPp Gandhi Bhavan, HYderaba oard, Mazinine Floor, d, Telangana State.

2. The principal Secretarv

4. The Chairperson,Centr: ; m r,nlle,',i.:i*fi1,-*if+mq"';*gi*.i.hd;, il.ld; *li+rru+ +:ruru[*#*qt*"ffi ::1 # : t8i:.;$:1rv5",.:35 ?331+. werFnCilirigh court for the State of ' o. rwo uus to Gp FOR WO-Meru.CHII_OWELFARE DEVELOpMENT ,High iI li,i8affi il *.,";::[ilgutl " ?, #t s dy,:x.ft BM t, HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.37184 of 2016 -- ":i -:'j";:'"'i::-. i_: :,-', :,? J'i ; ; ,-)' ' - -;:. :--:.-- t i,-.a.'i !r "' 2 i 5iP ?ffi5 ::', -s- ;. _'' _. t'l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHCOSTS ,/4 4..s' ,4.5