High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any order or dlrection writ or writs more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to order Pay fixation from the date of increment i.e, 01/09/1993 and order the Government of Telangana to pay 42 Lakhs for Mental agony (for 21 years @ of 2 lakhs per year), to grant cost of the complaint Rs. 10,000i- and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled rn support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 for the Cancellation of the proceedrngs (1) D. Dis 'l I I I j a c e Number 1751 UGC PF-112000 daled 21-06-2001. (2) Rc. No 97IUGC-PFl 2O15, dated 08-12-2016 (3) File No, CCE- SER 2/ RPS{2|2022-SER dated 18-10-2023 and order pay fixation from the date of increment i.e., from cn 01-09-'1993 and directed the Respondent NO.1 to pay Rs. 42,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty two lakhs only) for mental agony 'for 21 years at Rs. 2,00,000/- per year, to grant Cost of the complaint Rs. 10,0001 ( Rupees ten Thousand) in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.NARSIMHULU [PARTY-IN-PERSON] Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I J The Court made the following: ORDER I I I a ,l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRJT PETITION No. 17792 of 2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the 2"a respondent in not fixing his pay from the date of increment i.e., 01.09.i993 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2"a respondent to fix his pay from O 1.09.1993 and also direct the Government of Telangana to pay Rs.42 lakhs for menta-l agony (for 21 years (@ Rs.2 lakhs per year) and to grant costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Heard Sri G.Narsimhulu (party-in person) and the learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follbws : (") The petitioner was initially appointed asa Junior Lecturer on i3.O9.1978 and was subsequently promoted to Lecturer on 06.08. 1993, at Government Degree College, Medak. At the time of promotion, the l petitioner exercised his option for pa1, fixatiorr, indicating the date of his next increment as O1.09.1993. Hou,ever, in tlre procr:edings issued by the 2",1 respondent 2l.06.200|, the date of pay hxation was shou,n as

06.08. 1993 (the date of promotion), and the next increment '"r as recorded as 06.08. 1994. The petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2007. Since 26.06.2OO2, the petitioner has l:een rnaking representations to the 2nd respondent requesting to fix his pay from O1.O9.1993 (the increment date) instead of 06.O8.1993. (b) [n the pay fixation proceedings, the 2"a respondent mentioned that if the pay fixation now ordered is later found to be erroneous, any excess amourlt paid rn'ill be rccovererd from the salary of the petitioner $'ithout an_\' prior notice, in addition to revising and re-fixing the pay According Lo the proceedings dated 16.01.1998 issued b1' the 2'rli respondent, the pay shall be fixed fron'r Lhe date ol increment, i.e., O1.09.1993, irrespective of the option t:xercised. - (c) The 3.d respondent, vide Letter No. 299 lEl /TGC-SRD/2016, dated 02.OI.2O i6, recommended the pay fixation of the petitioner lrom the date of increment, i.e., from 01.09. 1993. However, the 2"d respondent has not taken any action on the said ietter. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has liled the present writ petition.

1. Therefore, the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the 2"a respondent to fix his pay from O 1.09. 1993 and allor,,' the u rit petition.

5. The 2"a respondent has filed a counter alfidavit stating that initially, the petitioner was appointed asa Junior Lecturer and subsequently promoted as Lecturer on

06.08. 1993. The petitioner's pay u,as fixed in the cadre of Lecturer as per the option exercised by him from the date of promotion, i.e., 06.08.1993 vide proceedings Rc.No.175lUGC-PF/2OOO, dated 21.06.2001, and the date t { of thc ncxt increment was mentioned as 06.08.1994. The pctitioncr retired lrom service on 3O.O4.2OO7 -

6. [t is furrther stated that the petitiont:r has rnade representations to chaage his option exercised in RPS 1993 PAY SCALES and re-fix his pay from the date of increment, i.e., 01.09. i 993, instead of 06.08.1993, after a lapse of ten \.ears. The petitioner's request was exarnined and rejected vide proceedings No.Rc.No.97/UGC-PF/2015, dated

08.12.2O16 arnd 10.05.2018, in terms of Government Memo No.1l73lCtr I ll2OO7-2, dated 02.O1.20O8.

7. It is further stated that the Government issuecl a Memo dated 02.01.2008 stating that the option orlce exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered under anv circumstances. The said Government Memo \\'as communicated to a1l the Principals of the Government Degree Colleges in the State vide proceedings Rc.No.191/UCiC Pl 12011, dated 22.O2.2O18. I -------7 B. [t is further stated that the petitioner made a representation on 07.06.2O23 to reconsider his pay fixation in the cadre of degree college lecturer, i.e., after a lapse of more than 14 years. The petitioner's request was once again re examined and rejected vide proceedings No.CCE- SER2/RPS/2 /2O22-SER2, dated 18.10.2023. Therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered as per (iovernment Memo No.1173/CE.l-Il2OO7-2, dated

02.01.2008.

9. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner. Thus, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made bv either side, is of the considered view that the petitioner approached seeking relief after a lapse of fifteen vears. The respondent authorities have provided a proper I I I ( I "' 1 I reply t$.ice to the representations made 'lly the petitioner, stating that par fixation is not feasible for consideration and accordinglr' rejected it as per Govertrment Memo No. 1173iCO l-1 l2OO7 2, dated 02.O7.2OO8. which reads as follo"r's "Tfu? attention of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hgderabad, is inuited to the references cited and le i-s infonned thnt the option once exercised shall be final and it cannot be altered under artg ciratmstances and hence, the request is hereby rejected by the Gouerutment." 1 I . In vieu o[ the above Memo, it is clear that once the option is exercised, the same u,ould be Iinal and it cannot be altererl under any circumstances. Tl-rr:refore, the petitioner's relief cannot be granted. Hence, the u'rit petition lac ks r-nerit and is liable to be dismissecl.

12. Accordingl,v. the rvrit petition is dismissed. No order as to costs I To, //TRUE COPY// /-P. PONNA KRISHN ISTANT RE R SECTION OFFI CER \ 1 2 One CC to SRI G NARSIMHULU' [PARTY-IN-PER Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I' High Court for t e State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies BSR BS g -@ff=T*' \ I ,l I I i ,l I j HIGH COURT DATED: 07110t2025 ORDER WP.No.17792 of 2024 \t,. a :,5 i 1,.1 3 0 rlilT 2p5 ( 1;: : DISMISSING T'HE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I Y) .i-,