The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the lmpugned Order passed in W.P.No.22041 of 2024, dated 0911012025 by the Honorable Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao; during the pendency of the Appeal a Counselfor the Appellant: M/S. VINCENT AUGUSTTNE, PARTY-IN-PERSON Counselforthe Respondent No.1: Ms. B. ANNAPURNA AGP FOR SERVICES I Counselfoi the Respondent Nos.2&3: M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM The Court made the following: ORDER I i I i : : IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN MIT APPEAL No.1392 of 2025 DATED: 17.12.2o25 Between: Vincent Augustine AND ... Appellant The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others ... Respondents JUDGMENT: Heard .Mr. Vincent Augustine, party in person, Ms. B.Annaprlrna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-t appearing for respondent No.l and Mr. Sai Varun Kapuluru, learned counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm, for t t respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2

2. Appellant, who is the approached the writ Court prayer: petitioner in W.p .No.22O4l of 2024, tn the .year 2024 with the following "For the reasons stated in thc a, ::':;:::::'T Honbre cou* d;::Hi:;.T:"""'i'r is herebv Mandarnu" r..,lrrJT:H:'"' in the ".,,11"" :ru.:JT; in sranted :rements and ;:' },:"ff:l :,TJ; tt"^nicia, and to pass such other order or may deem fit and proper under the promotional other service .",,'"nt" arbitrary, ,rr"orrtn'" j u s,ice, " ", ". o, "lT,I :::i *j ;#TJ' orders as this n," circumstances or;]ff::1t such ;t H";:::'":':ts as per my sel ' 3' Learned writ court, after consideration of the case of the parties, has rejected the clair J_vLvu crrc cr&trrl of the writ petitioner holding as, under: the rivar submissions or th"t since the petitioner was and experience, three advance "11. This Court ho,,.i_^ either side, is ., *" H#;:T:::::: duly recog nized.by his quari'catio't."* increments were ;.";;-:_::*ualrorls into the post or:fi:'.t;:";::"1,.,,,,"ner at the tir throughout his service and three : i' basic pal and "rrr*r" three increment"*t"o ;*.^.:':t: forward in Branted at the *,::"".n"tnt the sameT;';':.::,3 rncrements were included in his pay revisions' The .1 il:H:':;TI u pon eve rv p'o"';"o,,' :ffi 'H::: il:l J: and pav was dury carried out, there was no d;:l#-.til: the petitioner to claim that his a \ t I I I j , I i I i I I I I I l I : : I l J career was ruined or that his rights were denied. The petitioner repeatedly raised the same matter throughout his service, and the respondent Universit5r addressed the same time and again. 12. Furthermore, the petitioner's promotion to the post of Senior Technician was given effect from 01.07.1991, and his pay was revised accordi.rgly, as per Order No.UH/P.II|B.2l2OOll486, dated O3.O7.2OO1. The petitioner's grievance was examined by the appropriate authorities, including the Grievance Committee and the DPC, which were reflected in the memorandum dated 30.08.2001 and memo dated O4.LO.2OO2 with the necessary rectifications. Further, the petitioner, during his entire career, did not file any appeal under Section 32 of the University of Hyderabad Act, lg47, against any Offrce . Memorandu.m or orders issued by the Respondent university and has filed the present writ Petition after 17 years of his voluntar5r retiremcnt and the petitioner has not explained any reasons for the said prolonged delay. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner's revised pay was correctly fixed in the revised pay strucl.ure, based on the recommendations of the vI cPC. Ifurther, one Mr. Zaheeruddin, who joined in the University as a Jtrnior Technician on 24.12.1977 i.e., more than one and a half years before joining the petitioner, in the same post would be having higher pay than the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Technician bn 01.07.1991 and took voluniary retirement in the year 2oo7. since then, the petitioner has been receiving pension and other service benefits as per his seniority. As a matter of fact, the increments, which were granted to the petitioner earrier, were subsequently absorbed into his basic pay. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to additional benefits each time as and when his pay is revised or refixed. Hence, the writ pelition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." 0 I i : I \

4. We do not find any explanation worth its narne for approaching the writ Court after 17 years of taking volunta4r retirement by the writ petitioner in the year 2OO7. Writ proceedings cannot be allowed to be invoked after such length of time. Filing of the representation by the writ petitioner in the year 2O2O would not erase the march of time to keep the cause of action, if any, alive for 17 years. The learned writ Court has however also properly dealt with the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.

5. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, Sd/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY //TRUE COPY// OFFTCER 1- one cc to M/s. vlNcENT AUGUSTTNF, pARTy-tN-pERSoN topucl - -'- L-. - -r 2. One CC to M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM, Advocate [OpUC] 3. Two ccs to GP FoR SERVICES t ,Hign court fbr the State of relangana at 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ,*v PMK a \ i I l HIGH COURT DATED i1711212025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1392 of 2025 THE S Te 2 0 JAll 202[ \ * LJ f z. C) x.. * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a .\ a

1.,t'