THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 24578 of 2008 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Faculty Member of the Divisional Training Center, LIC of India, Visakhapatnam, seeking directions to the respondents to release the normal grade increments due to him from 01.07.2002 onwards. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has been granted his normal grade increment as of 01.07.2001 and that his next increment was due to fall on 01.07.2002, but however, a false complaint has been lodged against him with the CBI, Visakhapatnam, which conducted a raid on his residence on 31.10.2001 and implicated him in a false case registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension on 31.10.2001, but however, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was allowed to resume duty on 17.02.2005. He is presently working as a Faculty Member at Divisional Training Center, LIC of India, Visakhapatnam. C.C.No. 2 of 2003, the criminal case launched against the petitioner by the CBI has resulted in convicting the writ petitioner, according to him, erroneously, on 28.02.2007 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and also pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-. The writ petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2007 and that the High Court, while admitting the criminal appeal, suspended the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the writ petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the relief noted supra, on the premise that while he was willing to work, it is the LIC of India, which has prevented him from working and hence, it is not justified in not releasing the normal grade increments due and payable to him ever since 01.07.2002. The question, which falls for consideration is this; whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted the normal grade increments at all for the period when he was kept under suspension. Before answering this question, it will be appropriate to notice the following averment contained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in its paragraph 6, that the case of the petitioner was reviewed and the normal grade increments due to him on 01.07.2005, 01.07.2006, 01.07.2007 and 01.07.2008 were released and arrears of Rs.64,347/- were paid on 08.12.2008. As was already noticed supra, the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension on 31.10.2001, obviously, when the raid conducted by the CBI has resulted in some incriminating material being collected against the petitioner. The annual grade increment or normal grade increment is liable to be released by the employer in favour of any employee upon completion of 12 calendar months’ service satisfactorily, until and unless, the normal grade increment is withheld as a measure of punishment. In other words, an annual grade increment in a running scale of pay raising the pay of the employee from the previous stage would be granted automatically to an employee upon completion of 12 months satisfactory service. If the employer seeks to impose a punishment by withholding such an annual grade increment, he can do so by following the procedure prescribed for the said purpose. Otherwise, for satisfactorily rendering 12 months service, the employee earns an increment. In the instant case, the writ petitioner was kept under suspension on 31.10.2001 and he has been reinstated to duty only on 17.02.2005. Therefore, for the annual grade increments falling due in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, the petitioner cannot make any grievance for the respondents not releasing the same, inasmuch as the petitioner has not rendered any satisfactory service to the Corporation. After his reinstatement, he has been rendering services to the Corporation and upon assessment of the quality of those services, his annual grade increments due on 01.07.2006 and 01.07.2007 ought to have been released automatically. Perhaps, not releasing these two annual grade increments to which he is otherwise eligible gave scope to this Writ Petition. Now that the counter-affidavit has disclosed that the annual grade increments due to him on 01.07.2005, 01.07.2006, 01.07.2007 and 01.07.2008 have already been released, the petitioner cannot be said to have any grievance subsisting at all. In fact, the petitioner stood reinstated only on 17.02.2005. Even though he had not completed 4 months of service by 01.05.2005, yet, the Corporation has released the normal grade increment due to him as on 01.07.2005. Similarly, though the petitioner has been convicted of offence involving moral turpitude by a competent Sessions Court, by its judgment dated 28.02.2007, and though only the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court has been suspended by this Court, but not his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, but yet, the Corporation has released the subsequent annual grade increments falling due on 01.07.2007 and 01.07.2008. I, therefore, consider that what the respondent Corporation has done in the instant case is more than what the petitioner is legitimately entitled to and due. However, for the period between 31.10.2001 and 17.02.2005, he was kept under suspension. As to how this period of suspension should be treated is entirely a different matter. If the writ petitioner was initially placed under suspension, for his involvement in a criminal case, upon his conviction by the criminal Court, as was done in the instant case on 31.10.2001, the Corporation is entitled to take a decision as to whether the said period in between 31.01.2001 and 17.02.2005 deserves to be treated as period spent on duty or not. Only in the event the Corporation comes to the conclusion that the said period is liable to be treated as period spent on duty, then the question of releasing the increments due as on 01.07.2002, 01.07.2003 and 01.07.2004 would arise. If on the other hand, the Corporation decides that the period spent by the petitioner under suspension is liable to be treated as the period not spent on duty, but will be treated as suspension only, then he will not be entitled to be released the annual grade increments due and falling on 01.07.2002, 01.07.2003 and 01.07.2004. At the same time, the Corporation will not be entitled to recover any amount paid towards subsistence allowance, because it will be too inhuman to propose to recover the subsistence allowance once paid to the employee. Similarly, if the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension, pending any disciplinary proceedings against him, a similar exercise as was narrated supra, has got to be carried out depending upon the result in the disciplinary proceedings. The Regulations of the Corporation, if authorize not to treat the period of suspension as period spent on duty, if an employee has been imposed a major punishment, then, perhaps, the Corporation would be justified in not releasing the annual grade increments falling due on 01.07.2002, 01.07.2003 and 01.07.2004. Since neither side has chosen to place the copy of the order of suspension before me, I am not able to specifically point out as to the course of action, which was needed to be taken. In those set of circumstances, depending upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, if any initiated or pending against the writ petitioner, a decision can be taken with regard to the release of the annual grade increments due to him on 01.07.2002, 01.07.2003 and 01.07.2004. As of now, the subsisting grievance of the writ petitioner has been very satisfactorily redressed by the respondent Corporation, even before a copy of the interim order whould have reached them. Therefore, to my mind, the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 5th July 2010 ksld