Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr.Kanala Kodanda Reddy vs The Sri Venkateswara University, on 29 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION Nos.14107 and 15333 of 2022
WP No.14107 of 2022 :
Between:
#1. Dr. Kanala Kodanda Reddy,
S/o. K. Ramachandra Reddy, aged 58 years,
Working as Associate Professor, Dept. of
Anthropology, Sri Venkateswara University,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The Sri Venkateswara University, rep. by its
Registrar, Tirupati, Chittoor District & another.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 29.09.2023
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see
- Yes -
the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals - Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the
- Yes -
Judgment?
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION Nos.14107 and 15333 of 2022
% 29.09.2023
WP No.14107 of 2022 :
Between:
#1. Dr. Kanala Kodanda Reddy,
S/o. K. Ramachandra Reddy, aged 58 years,
Working as Associate Professor, Dept. of
Anthropology, Sri Venkateswara University,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
... Petitioner
And
$ 1. The Sri Venkateswara University, rep. by its
Registrar, Tirupati, Chittoor District & another.
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V. Ramana
Counsel for Respondents: Sri K.V. Raghuveer, G.P.
Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, S.C
<Gist :
>Head note :
?Cases referred :
1. Civil Appeal No.8031 of 2022
2. 20200 LawSuit(SC)775
3
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.14107 & 15533 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
As the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.14107 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.
4. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent University on 10.01.2006 the petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Professor in Academic Staff college, Tirupati in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 besides other allowances. Subsequently he was transferred to the Department of Anthropology, S.V. University College, vide proceedings of V.C., dated 10.09.2007. Prior to his entry into the University service as Assistant Professor, the petitioner rendered his duties 4 as Young Scientist, Pool Scientist and Research Associate, funded by DSI, New Delhi, CSIR, New Delhi and ICMR, New Delhi. The petitioner's appointment was made after conducting interview on all India basis as per the UGC norms and he continued for 13 years in the department of Anthropology in the respondent University. While the matter stood thus, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.208 H.E Department, dated 29.10.2009 providing revision pay scales as per UGC pay sclaes 1996 in respect of Teachers of University and colleges. Thereafter, the Government issued another G.O.Ms.No.38 revising appendix to G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 20.02.2010 under which point No.1.13 provides "Counting of past service" for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. Since the petitioner has completed 13 years past valid service, it is to be counted for the purpose of CAS for the purpose of fixation of AGPs of Rs.7000, Rs.8000 and Rs.9000 for promotion under CAS. Even though the petitioner is entitled for the said criteria provided thereunder, the respondent university did not consider his case. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. The counter affidavits are filed in both the matters, for convenience, the averments in counter in W.P.No.14107 of 2022 are stated as under:
5
6. The 1st respondent filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated the proceedings No.E.II(2) KKR/Anthro/CAS/2007-18 dated 10.01.2019 were cancelled due to erroneous pay fixation, in which the past service were considered in cumulative manner which is against the UGC regulations for the promotion under CAS, vide proceedings No.E.II(2)/KKR/Anthro/CAS/2007-18 dated 28.1.2019. Further the same was clarified by the A.P. State Council of Higher Education in its letter no.APSCGE-Ums-C1-1001/SVU-CSS- Kodanda Reddy/2020, dated 14.5.2020. Acceded to the above, the petitioner was continued and applied for further promotion under CAS. Further, the Executive Council Resolution No.Confi-1, dated 18.3.2021 resolved to award of respective AGPs be approved by considering the regulations of the UGC regarding designations and clarification of the APSCHE on clubbing of past service of the teachers, subject to final outcome of the writ petitions pending before the High Court of Judicature. Accordingly to which the promotion under CAS is stepwise and should in linear manner, the past service should not be considered in cumulative manner. The same was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing WP No.14616 of 2012 before the High Court and this Court while 6 dispose of the said writ petition has given liberty to take action as warranted by law by following due procedure.
It is further stated that according to the UGC regulations, the petitioner herein shall fulfil requirements for implementation of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) to get promotions under CAS as per UGC Regulations 2010. The A.P. State Council of Higher Education, Mangalagiri, has clarified on the implementation of CAS to the 1st respondent herein Vide Lr.No. APSCHE-Ums-C1- 1001/SVU-CSS-Kodanda Reddy/2020, dated 14.5.2020. Thereafter, the 1st respondent has constituted a Committee on 30.4.2018 with the former Vice Chancellor and Senior Professors to examine the plea of the petitioner herein and similarly placed petitioners. The 1st respondent University has not given benefit of CAS promotion to any similarly placed petitioners in violation of UGC regulations. She is already given the benefit of four years of past service in violation of UGC Regulations and he has no legal right to claim the past service in a single step. No irregularity is committed by the 1st respondent and hence action of this respondent is not illegal and arbitrary. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions.
7
7. The 2nd respondent also filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petitions. It is stated that the petitioner herein rendered service in the projects with different nomenclatures, with breaks prior to his regular appointment in the respondent university. The respondent Government to condone the break of service between the temporary service and regular service and consider such pat service for award of CAS to the next level, it has considered the total past service in relaxation of UGC Regulations for implementation of CAS with regard to break up of service only but not CAS regulations, wherein the petitioner has put 13 year of temporary/adhoc service in the projects. The break of service for promotion to senior Scale only under CAS but not to give relaxation of CAS regulations to count 13 years to effect all promotions at a stretch. In this regard, the Government issued letter dated 26.4.2017 which is misinterpreted by the petitioner before this Court in order to obtain interim orders. Hence an order of benefit given to an individual or petitioner herein if amounts to an illegality as per law, cannot be perpetuated and similar illegal benefits be given to the petitioner or similarly placed person which is a settled legal principle of law i.e., "An illegality cannot be perpetuated" on this ground the present writ petitions liable to be dismissed.
8
8. Reply affidavits also filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents and denied the averments made in the counter affidavits. It is stated that when a Selection committee was constituted for considering extending 10000 AGP and for redesignating as Professors, as the petitioner is entitled for the same submitted an application for CAS promotion for Professor with 10000AGP on 28.9.2022 a letter was communicated to one of his colleague for consideration of his case for 9000 AGP and he was also asked to attend the interview on 14.10.2022. In view of cancellation of 9000 AGP the orders dated 28.1.2019 the respondents may not consider his case. It is further stated that the then Inc-charge Vice Chancellor has cancelled the orders on the eighteenth day of issuing, with no proper reference nor by following a "proper channel" approval. It is further stated that the counter affidavits misleading the court by citing the clauses under the point as "UGC regulation" while it is not so! In order to cover up their unethical action, university adopted several misplaced clauses which are quite post-dated and somehow connect to the petitioners promotional orders. Since the university was reluctant to withdraw the cancellation proceedings against AGP 9 9000 the petitioner was compelled to appear before the selection committee on 8.2.201 for the same designation of Associate Professor as he was in AGP 8000 by 4.7.2007. it is further stated that the University has claimed that the selection committee has given liberty to fix the eligibility date on their own. On the contrary a responsible selection committee which assesses the Academic Performance Indicators (API) will not delegate this duty to the University in this case alone. It is further stated that, it is likely, suppose if Government clarifies, University may question it again, and may continue to seek further clarification until their ulterior motto is achieved. At the same time, University supported the Governmetn letter and backed certain teachers. But Government issued similar clarification to all the referred teachers as mentioned in the counters. Even the said teachers were allowed for Professor Promotion during 12-14 the Octoer 2022 while the same benefit is denied to the petitioners because the matter is pending with the government.
9. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioners in W.P. No.14107 of 2022, the same are adopted by the petitioner in other writ petition i.e., W.P.Nos.15533 of 2022 and the counters 10 filed by the respondents in both the writ petitions are also one and same.
10. During pendency of the above writ petitions, this Court granted interim direction. In W.P.No.14107 of 2022, this Court vide order, dated 23.08.2022, granted interim direction as under:
"...Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 27.7.2021 for granting AGP 10000 under CAS based upon Government order dated 26.4.2017 by permitting to participate in ensuing selection, subject to result of the writ petition"
11 Since the respondents have not complied with the above order, the petitioners have filed the Contempt Cases vide C.C.No.4585 and 4781 of 2022 against the respondents in these writ petitions.
12. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the petitions, and he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in The Mahatma Gandhi University and Others versus Rincymol Mathew1, wherein the Apex Court held that :
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant University has taken us to Regulation 10.1 of the UGC Regulations. It is submitted that as per Regulation 10.1, only previous regular service as Assistant 1 Civil Appeal No.8031 of 2022 11 Professor, Associate Professor should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. Therefore, it is submitted that as initially, the appointment of the respondent as a Lecturer was on temporary post and was not made after following due procedure as required under the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, respondent shall not be entitled to past services rendered for CAS benefits.
6.1 It may be true that at the relevant time when she was appointed as Lecturer, the post was temporary but as observed hereinabove, on that temporary post, her appointment was sanctioned by the Director as well as Vice-Chancellor. As observed hereinabove, she has continuously worked right from 1998 (03.10.1998) till she continued to work as Associate Professor. At this stage, the Regulation 10.1 with respect to the grant of CAS is required to be considered, which reads as under:-
"10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III-Table No. II provided that:
(a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be.
(b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-
revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.
(c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only.
(d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be.
(e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments.
(f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that:
(i) the period of service was of more than one year duration;12
(ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and
(iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break.
(g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government), was considered for counting past services under this clause."
13. On relying upon the above decision, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Regulation 10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted and hence prayed to allow these petitions and pass appropriate orders.
14. Whereas the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in their counters submits that the respondent Government and the University considered adhoc/temporary service of 4 years among the total past service for one level promotion as Assistant Professor Senior Scale though the petitioner has not fulfilled 13 pre-requisites as prescribed by the UGC after entering into university service. He further submits that the order of benefit given to an individual or petitioners herein if amounts to an illegality as per law, cannot be perpetuated further and similar illegal benefits be given to the petitioners or similarly placed person which is a settled legal principle of Law i.e., "An illegality cannot be perpetuated". He further submits that UGC Regulations stipulates that the conditions for implementation of CAS to the teachers working in the Universities including those cases of counting of past service that the teacher shall be promote step wise by fulfilling requisite experience, as furnished hereunder, and fulfilment of pre-requisites on their academic career.
15. To support his contentions, learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Registrar Karnataka University and another vs. Prabhugouda and another2, wherein the Apex Court held that:
. The High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect namely, that the first respondent was not in actual service of the University or of the constituent College, has ordered to extend the benefit from 01.01.2009, on the ground that he has completed three years of service, by working 2 2020 LawSuit(SC)775 14 as Assistant Professor in Mathematics in UGC pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009. There cannot be any promotion in the University for the period where the writ petitioner was not in effective service of the University. The University is not expected to order promotion for the period when he was working in affiliated college. The High Court, by mere mathematical calculation, by basing on the service certificate which is "Annexure D" before the High Court, has held that as SLP(C) No. 8088/2020 he has completed three years of service as Assistant Professor in UGC scale and therefore the effective date of promotion should be 01.01.2009 and not 28.10.2013, as granted by the University. Further, the High Court has fell in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word "colleges", by extending to "affiliated college". Even the Division Bench has also committed the same error by recording a finding that a magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings University/Colleges, as used in the paragraph/clause 12.7 of the Statute. The University has correctly interpreted the various clauses of the Statute and by giving the benefit of past service, has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry into the service of the University. It is also to be noticed that at the time of appointment itself, though the writ petitioner has completed three years of service, fully knowing that he was not eligible for appointment as a Professor, he has not claimed the post of Professor. Even the representations filed by the writ petitioner indicate that he claimed notional service, in spite of the same, the High Court, by misconstruing the statute contrary to its objectives, as mentioned in the preamble liberally construed, going beyond the scope of the statute and granted all consequential benefits, by SLP(C) No. 8088/2020 declaring that the effective date for promotion was to be 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.
16. Learned Government Pleader on relying upon the above decisions, submits that even though the petitioners have completed three years of service fully knowing that they are not eligible for appointment as profession, they have not claimed the post of Professor. Therefore, there is no merit in the present writ petitions and hence prayed to dismiss the same.
17. As seen from the material available on record, it is observed at page No.57 of the material paper, the G.O.Ms.No.38 15 Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 23.6.2016 wherein the Government mentioned that "...after careful examination of the matter, the Government hereby order for implementation of UGC Regulations 2010 issued Vide F.3-1/2009, dated 30.6.2010 and substitute the existing Appendix to G.O.Ms.No.14 H.E (UE) Department, dated 20.2.2010 with the Revised Appendix appended herewith. The revised appendix shall be effective from 30th June 2010. These orders shall be applicable to the faculty of all the State funded Universities established through State Act and receive Block Grants, Government and Private Aided Degree Colleges, where UGC Scale of pay of 2006 were implemented/extended." Further it is observed at page No.87, which is the letter of A.P. State Council of higher Education vide Lr.No. APSCHE/UM-591 (AP)/CAS- Cons. Past Exper./2014, dated 20.09.2014, wherein the implementation of CAS to certain Unviersiaty Teachers, the AP State Council of Higher Education has revised the proposals of the petitioners who are mentioned in the table at Sl.No.2 and 3 for counting their past service to award Ass.t Professor (Sr. Scale) under CAS in UGC RPS 2006.
16
18. This court further observed the letter vide Lr.No. APSCGE/Ums-SVU-CAS-KKR/2016 dated 16.9.2016, and in that letter at page No.97 of the material papers, it was mentioned that :
"Since the UGC has considered to count Research Associate service for GAS as slated in point 6 (ii) above and the Project Work / Senior Associate Researchship was recommended funded and monitored by the Department of Science Technology, CSIR, ICMR, the AP State Council of Higher Education is of the view that the Government may consider the service rendered by the individual Dr. K. Kodanda Reddy in various capacities may be counted for the purpose of award of Senior Scale under CAS in view of the fulfilment of conditions in point 4 above by relaxing 3 (1) (i) as stated above (in point No. (f)
(i) of 1.13 of G.O.Ms. No. 38 Higher Education Department dated 23.6.2016 (UGC Regulations 2010) for a period of four months considering his 13 years of Research Experience as stated above."
19. This Court further observed that, the petitioners have smutted their applications vide letters dated 25.04.2017 and 26.4.2017 to the Director, State Audit, AP Vijayawada for implementation of CAS to them by considering their past service. Further, as seen from the proceedings of the In-charge Vice-Chancellor, dated 28.01.2019, at page No.114 of the material papers, wherein it was mentioned that "after considering his past service of 13 years rendered by the petitioner in various capacities in S.V. University prior to join in 17 the University as Assistant Professor i.e., from 4.7.2007 int eh proceedings eleventh read above is stands cancelled." Further, it is observed from the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor dated 10.01.2019 at page no.115, it was mentioned at Sl.No.4 that:
"Dr. K. Kodanda Reddy in his letter seventh read, and Note Orders under reference eighth read above, addressed a letter to the District Audit Officer, Stats Audit Department, S.V. University, Tirupati to clarify whether Dr. K. Kodanda Reddy is eligible for extending the AGP Rs.9000/- w.e.f. 04.07.2007 in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 under Career Advancement Scheme as the Government letter second read above."
20. In reply, the District Audit Officer, State Audit Department, S.V. University, Tirupati, in his letter tenth read above, has informed that, in view of the orders Issued by the Government in its letter second read above, and as endorsed by the Director of State Audit, Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam in his Fierno No.2450/103/A/2016, dated 03.05.2017 of the Directorate of State Audit, A.P., the Audit Officer states that, the Government have agreed to count the past service of 13 years rendered by the individual in various capacities before appointment as Assistant Professor for Implementation of Career Advancement Scheme in relaxation of UGC Regulations, 2010. Further, he also informed that, In view of the orders of the letter of the Government and Memo of the Directorate of State Audit, 18 the past service of 13 years is valid service in extending the AGP Rs.9000 under Career Advancement Scheme.
21. In view of the clarification obtained from the District Audit Officer, State Audit Department, S.V. University, Tirupati, In his letter S.A.No.277, dated 08.01.2019, basing on the Government letter second read, Memo No.2450/103/A/2016, dated 03.05.2017 of the Directorate State Audit, A.P., and on the orders of the Hon'ble In-charge Vice-Chancellor eleventh read above, Dr. K. Kodanda Reddy, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, SVU College of Sciences, Tirupati is now extended the AGP of Rs 9000 and designated as Associate Professor under CAS in the pay Band of Rs.37400- 67000 after considering his past service of 13 years.
22. It was also mentioned that the pay now extended is notional from 04.07.2007 and monetary benefit w.e.f. 03.09.2010. Thereafter the SVU issued proceedings dated 19.6.2021 stating that the petitioner Dr.K.Kodanda Reddy, is fixed at Rs.1,31,400/- with Academic Level 13A in the Pay Matrix of Rs.131400-217100 in APR UGC RPS 2016 w.e.f. 4.7.2015. accordingly this order supersedes the earlier CAS 19 promotion dates in different AGPs in pre-revised scales and reads as follows:
Name of the teacher Already awarded AGP Date of eligibility and with dates Award of AGP Dr K.Kodanda Reddy 04.07.2007 - AGP 8000 04.07.2007 - AGP 7000 Associate Professor Dept. of Anthropology 04.07.2012 - AGP 8000 04.07.2015 - AGP 9000
23. On hearing, it is the contention of the petitioners that the orders dated 10.1.2019 were issued as per government letter duly referring the matter to Audit Authorities and duly placing the matter before the Executive Council in the year 2018. While granting AGPs by orders dated 11.7.2017, 11.9.2018 including 10.1.2019 for 9000 AGP UGC Regulations were relaxed. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the said order is bound to be given affect for the purpose of 9000 AGP from 4.7.2007.
Further, the order dated 10.1.2019 and earlier fixations are keeping in view of the criteria laid down under 2010 UGC regulations, R/w. GOMS No.14 H.E dated 20.2.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.38 HE dated 23.6.2016 the question of taking away the said benefit under 28.1.2019 without issuing any notice is violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 20
19. This Court further observed that as per Clause 10.1(f) the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted. It is further observed that as per the UGC regulations 2010 at para 6 and other relevant paras the petitioners entitled for AGP 7000, 8000 and 9000 duly counting hsi past service as per the criteria indicated inteh said Regulation R/w G.O.Ms.No.14 HE Department dated 20.02.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.38 HE Department, dated 23.06.2016. Further, the Government elaborately considered the said Regulations and it is only in relaxation of UGC Regulations 2010 for CAS, the petitioner was given benefit counting past service for the purpose of CAS. Therefore, on the face of UYGC Regulations R/w. the above GOs earlier action of the University in fixing AGP 7000 w.e.f 4.7.2007, 8000 AGP w.e.f. 4.2.2009 are valid and legal.
24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court deems fit to allow these writ petitions declaring that the petitioners are entitled for AGP with all consequential benefits and arrears and further onward higher levels including 10000 AGP .
21
25. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the University vide Proceedings No.EII(2)/KKR/ANTHRO/ CAS/2007-18 dated 10.1.2019 for granting AGP 9000 w.e.f. 4.7.2007 monetary benefits w.e.f. 3.9.2010 and orders dated 28.1.2019 cancelling the orders dated 10.1.2019 inspite of setting aside the orders dated 19.6.2021 cancelling the earlier proceedings fixing AGP 7000, 8000 and 9-00000 and in spite of withdrawing the said proceedings in WP NO.14107 of 2022 are declared as illegal and the same are hereby set side.
26. Insofar as W.P.No.15533 of 2022 is concerned, declaring the action of the respondent in not fixing AGP of the petitioner to 9000 w.e.f 4.2.2012 based on the fixation of AGPs of 7000, 8000 w.f. 4.7.2007 and 4.2.2009 in the proceedings of University dated 19.3.2018 and 11.9.2018 keeping in view of Government Orders dated 25.4.2017 counting past service for relaxation of UGC Regulations 2010 and keeping in view of resolution passed by the Executive Counsel, as illegal.
27. In that view of the matter, as per Clause 10.1 (f) the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary serviced of more than one year duration can be counted, therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners 22 that they are entitled for AGP 9000 w.e.f. 4.7.2007 to the petitioner in WP No.14107 of 2022 and w.e.f. 4.2.2012 to the petitioner in WP No.15533 of 2022 with all consequential benefits and arrears and further onward higher levels including 10000 AGP.
28. With the above observations, the Writ Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
29. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________________
DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date: 29 .09.2023
Note : L.R Copy to be marked.
(b/o)Gvl
23
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.14107 & 15533 of 2022
Date: 29.09.2023
Gvl