Andhra Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2025 [Citations 1 - 184]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 1 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 184Person Officiated To Higher Post On Orders Is Entitled To Pay In That Cadre Even If Later Found To Be Ineligible: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: The Supdt. of Post Offices, Srikakulam Division and four others vs Sri K. Narayana MurthyCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 1The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an employee who was officiated to a higher post on official orders is entitled to the salary of that post, regardless of subsequent findings of ineligibility.A division bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay passed the order in a writ petition challenging decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had directed that the respondent be given the pay of the cadre he was officiated to, for his period of officiation, irrespective of having the requisite qualifications. The CAT also entitled the respondent to all consequential benefits including pension fixation.Referring to a series of orders rendered by various High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Bench held:“17. So far as the payment of the pay for the officiating post is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly taken the view that the respondent officiated in the post on the orders of the authorities and for the period of officiation, he was entitled for pay in the cadre of HSG-I from the date of his officiating as HSG-I. (Higher Selection Grade)”Date Of Acquisition Of Qualification Is Date Of Declaration Of Results, Not Date Of Issuance Of Provisional Certificate: Andhra Pradesh HCCase Title: Bocha Srinu Babu vs. B. Mohan and 3 othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 2The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that date of acquiring requisite qualification would be from the date of declaration of results and not the date on which the provisional certificate was issued.A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice V Srinivas further held that though a provisional certificate is proof of qualification, its date of issuance cannot be taken as the date of acquisition of the qualification in question.The court pointed out that Regulation – 33 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (A.P.S.E.B.)Service Regulations, 1968 stipulates a 'last day of examination' rule that was not followed by the GO being relied on by the respondent/Corporation.“The material aspect; as to whether this memo dated 05.02.1992 clarifies 'last date of examination' as under Regulation-33 or the date of issuance of the provisional certificate is deemed to be the date of obtaining the degree, escaped consideration. This aspect is material for the reason that the degree is issued after some time, and in the absence of degree, to entitle the candidate/employee to show the proof of having acquired the qualification, where the provisional certificate has been obtained, the date of the provisional certificate is deemed to be the date of obtaining the degree. Whether such date of obtaining the provisional certificate has been clarified by memo, to be the 'last date of examination under the Regulation-33', prima facie, we are of the view that it is not so. “While Deciding Petition U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act, Court Cannot Ignore Basic Principles Of CPC: Andhra Pradesh HCCase Title: Tuf Metallurgical Private Limited Vs. Bst Hk Limited and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 3The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and Nayapathy Vijay observed that in deciding a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot ignore the basic principles of the CPC. At the same time, the power of the Court to grant relief is not curtailed by the rigours of every procedural provision in the CPC. In exercise of its powers to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the Court is not strictly bound by the provisions of the CPC.The issue before the court was 'whether the order of attachment of the learned single Judge calls for interference?If a strong prima facie case is made out and the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief being granted, the Court exercising power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC.”While Considering Suspension Of Sentence, Court Must See If Case Falls Under Any Exceptions: Andhra Pradesh HC ReiteratesCase Title: Smt. Mekala Sudha Prameela Kantha vs. State of AP and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 4The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a plea for suspension of sentence is generally sought without any conditions, and when an accused seeks a blanket order like this, the responsibility is cast on the Court to determine whether the case falls under an exception.Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi was hearing a cheque bouncing case, wherein the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court under section 138 of the NI Act, and sentenced to one year imprisonment...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Annual Digest 2025 [Citations 1 - 184]

Saahas Arora

Tags