Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 743 (AP)

C. S. Reddy v. State of A. P.

2021-11-03

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Abhay, learned counsel, representing Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Challa Sivasankar, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Bank. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “......declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent No. 3 in considering the representations submitted by the petitioners for payment of one additional increment equivalent to the last increment at the maximum of the Scale, after reaching the maximum of the Scale on the anniversary date of the petitioners increment in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement, dated 18-09-2010 which was given effective from 01-11-2007 as arbitrary, illegal, addiction of the statutory duty cast on him and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to consider the representations, dated 25-09-2017, 08-01-2018, 15-08-2018 and 04-12-2018 submitted by the petitioners and pay the additional increment amount as is provided under 4(c) of the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Agreement, dated 18-09-2010.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to various contentions raised in the writ petition submits that though the grievances of the petitioners are ventilated through their representations, made right from the year 2017, the same have not be redressed so far. He states that due to non-consideration of the representations made to the 3rd respondent-Bank dated 25-09-2017, 08-01-2018, 15-08-2018 and 04-12-2018 for payment of one additional increment equivalent to the last increment at the maximum of the scale, the petitioners are deprived of their benefits. He submits that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court under the said circumstances seeking appropriate directions. 4. The learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent-Bank would submit that if some time is granted to the 3rd respondent-Bank, the representations made by the petitioners would be examined and appropriate orders would be passed. 5. He submits that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court under the said circumstances seeking appropriate directions. 4. The learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent-Bank would submit that if some time is granted to the 3rd respondent-Bank, the representations made by the petitioners would be examined and appropriate orders would be passed. 5. Considering the submissions made, this Court without going into merits of the case is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent-Bank to take appropriate action on the aforementioned representations in accordance with law and the applicable byelaws/regulations of the 3rd respondent-Bank, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.