IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 35123 of 1998 Between: R.Malleswara Rao, S/o R.Nagaiah, Hindu, R/o H.No.10-5-773/2, Sai Nagar, Tukaram Gate, Sec'bad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Cheif Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Sec'bad. 2 The Dy.Cheif Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Sec'bad. 3 B.Vishalaksmi, Sr/Clerk, Cheif Security Commissioner's Office, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Sec'bad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the proceedings No.X/P.621/Vol.XIII, dt.9.11.98 refixing the pay of the petitioner in the post of Asst.Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector with retraspective effect prejudice to the interest of the petitioner by quashing the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the post of Asst.Sub- Inspector and Sub-Inspector taking into consideration of the training period of the Asst.Sub-Inspector from 22.10.90 to 09.12.90 and subsequent periods as duty period of Asst.Sub-Inspector and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. J.M. NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No. : MR. GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35123 OF 1998 ORDER: While elaborate submissions were made, both by Sri J.M. Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.S. Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, both the Counsel would agree that the only contention which necessitates adjudication is the petitioner’s apprehension that the salary paid to him when he was discharging the duties of an Assistant Sub-Inspector, prior to his being reverted to his substantive post of Head Constable on 22.10.1990, should not be recovered and that he was entitled to be paid the increment which was postponed on account of his being placed under suspension. Sri G.S. Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Railways, would fairly state that the respondents had no intention of recovering the salary paid to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector for the period anterior to 22.10.1990, since he had discharged the duties of an Assistant Sub-Inspector albeit by an interim in-charge arrangement. Learned Senior Standing Counsel would submit that, the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post of Head Constable on 22.10.1990, and was regularly promoted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police only on 27.03.1991. Learned Senior Standing Counsel would submit that, since during this intervening period of approximately five and half months from 22.10.1990 till 27.03.1991 the petitioner was paid the salary applicable only to the post of Head Constable, he was not entitled to have this period clubbed with the earlier period of service rendered by him as an in-charge Assistant Sub-Inspector, for fixation of pay on his regular promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector with effect from 27.03.1991. The submissions made by learned Senior Standing Counsel is taken on record and it is made clear that the salary paid to the petitioner as Assistant Sub-Inspector, for the period prior to 22.10.1990, shall not be recovered from him as, during the said period, he discharged the services of an Assistant Sub-Inspector. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to have this period of officiation included in the period of service to be taken into consideration in fixation of appropriate pay scales consequent on his regular appointment as an Assistant Sub-Inspector on 27.03.1990. Sri J.M. Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would also draw attention of this Court to para 7 of the order dated 09.11.1998 whereunder the petitioner was informed that, since he was placed under suspension from 14.03.1995 to 20.04.1995 and the period of suspension was treated as such, the date of his increment was postponed by a month from 01.02.1996 to 01.03.1996. Learned Counsel would contend that, since the order of suspension has been set aside by this Court, in W.P. No. 4307 of 1999 dated 01.02.2006, the petitioner is entitled to be paid his increment from 01.02.1996. Sri G.S. Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, would state that the respondent would examine the entitlement of the petitioner for being paid his increment from 01.02.1996, instead of from 01.03.1996, in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4307 of 1999 dated 01.02.2006. In view of the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid increment from 01.02.1996, instead of 01.03.1996, in terms of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 4307 of 1999 dated 01.02.2006 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, in case the petitioner is entitled for payment of the said amount, he shall be paid the amounts due within a period of one month thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 13.03.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JCS}