[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Smt. Bommathi Bhavani vs The Honble High Court For The State Of ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO
NANDIKONDA
W.P.No.32760 OF 2025
16.04.2026
Between:
Bommathi Bhavani
...Petitioner
AND
The Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance), Hyderabad
and two others
...Respondents
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
Heard Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. Samhitha Nimmala, learned counsel representing
Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for
respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Ms. M.Shalini, learned Government
Pleader for Services-II for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
2. The instant is a writ petition which has been filed initially
assailing the order of punishment dated 28.02.2025 whereby the
respondents having revoked the order of suspension had passed an
order of penalty with stoppage of two annual increments with
cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner.
3. When the writ petition came up for consideration before
this Bench at the first instance on 06.01.2026, in the midst
of the arguments, the learned counsel representing the petitioner
contended that in the present writ petition he is restricting his claim
only so far as the relief sought for in paragraph No.41 of the writ
petition is concerned and he is not pressing the other releifs sought
for in the writ petition for which he has reserved his right to avail
statutory remedies available to the petitioner. The relief sought for
in paragraph No.41 is for a direction to the respondents for grant of
two annual increments which fell due during the period of
suspension i.e., the one which fell due in October, 2023 and the
other in October, 2024.
4. The reason for seeking such a relief was the denial of
the benefit of increment during the suspension period and
simultaneously proceeding with implementation of the order of
punishment of further stoppage of two annual increments or that
which fell due in October, 2025 and which now would fall due in
October, 2026.
5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner, at the outset,
submits that as an implementation of the order of punishment, the
consequence that is now reflecting is the petitioner being deprived
of four annual increments starting from October, 2023 onwards
whereas the actual punishment is only for stoppage of two annual
increments. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents/High Court was that when the suspension order was
revoked, the period of suspension has been ordered to be treated as
duty period only for pensionary benefits without any monetary
benefits, which includes the non-grant of annual increments during
the said period. However, the two years would be counted for the
purpose of counting the length of service in the course of
determining the pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the
respondents/High Court referred to certain instructions reflected in
The Telangana Fundamental Rules of Note 5(a) under F.R. 24
which, for ready reference, reads as under:
"If a Govt. Servant is suspended for misconduct,
the period of suspension and period of service
preceding the suspension should not be counted
towards period of service necessary to earn
increment".
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/
High Court is that once when the petitioner has been subjected to
disciplinary proceedings and on placing the employee under
suspension, during the period of suspension, all that the employee
would get is subsistence allowance and that will determine as to
how the period of suspension is finally treated on the culmination
of the disciplinary proceedings. In the instant case, the disciplinary
proceedings is culminated on the charges being proved and the
petitioner being found guilty of the charges levelled and has also
been inflicted with a major punishment of stoppage of two annual
increments with cumulative effect. In the circumstances, on the
revocation of the suspension, the petitioner would only be entitled
for the subsistence allowance that he/she has received during the
suspension period and the period would be counted as period spent
on duty only for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits
and it cannot be extended by giving the benefit of annual increment
in the intervening period.
7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of
the contents of the very substantive provision i.e., F.R.24 of
The Telangana Fundamental Rules which, for ready reference ,is
reproduced hereunder:
F.R. 24. An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as
a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment
may be withheld from a Government servant by [the
State Government], or by any authority to whom the
State Government may delegate this power if his
conduct has not been good, or his work has not
been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an
increment the withholding authority shall state the
period for which it is withheld, and whether the
postponement shall have the effect of postponing
future increments.
The plain reading of the said provision by itself would make
things evidently clear that unless there is a specific order of
withholding of an increment, the increment shall ordinarily
be drawn as a matter of routine for the purpose of fixation of pay.
In the instant case, the order passed by the disciplinary authority
so far as revocation of suspension is concerned, is that which is
reflected in Annexure P-6 dated 29.08.2025 and the authority
has made the following observation as to how the period of
suspension shall be treated:
Now, the High Court having examined the entire
material on record, including the written
representation by Smt. Bommathi Bhavani, the
officer, hereby order to treat the suspension period
underwent by the officer as duty period only for the
pensionary benefits, without any monetary benefits
other than the subsistence allowance already paid.
The plain reading of the order passed by the Registrar General,
FAC Registrar (Vigilance), in the course of treating suspension
period clearly gives an indication that it was ordered for treating
the period of suspension underwent by the petitioner as duty
period only for pensionary benefits and without any monetary
benefits. The fact that the authority has held to be treated as duty
period for pensionary benefits, is itself a sufficient indication of
the petitioner being entitled for the notional grant of increment
during the suspension period. It can, under no circumstances, be
construed of the denial of benefits of increment during the
suspension period, else the petitioner would be denied of the
increment benefits during the suspension period and also the
denial of increments pursuant to the order of punishment, which
in the instant case, if added together, would be denied of four
annual increments against the order of punishment of only
stoppage of two annual increments. This is not what is mandated
in F.R.24. Even the Note 5(a) which has been relied on by the
respondents in support of their contention only would be
applicable so long as a person remains under suspension and
where the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal proceedings, as
the case may be, pending finalization. On culmination of the
disciplinary proceedings or the criminal case, the disciplinary
authority is duty bound to pass an order so far as how the
period of suspension has to be treated. In the instant case, the
disciplinary authority has found the petitioner guilty of
misconduct and ordered for stoppage of two annual increments
and has simultaneously ordered for revocation of suspension order
and also ordered for the suspension period to be treated as duty
period. If the authority passed an order for treating the suspension
period as duty period, it goes without saying that the employee
concerned would be entitled for appropriate fixation, which
includes the granting of annual increments during the period of
suspension. However, the petitioner or the employee concerned
may not be entitled for any actual monetary benefits, but
definitely will be entitled for the notional fixation of the salary
by adding the two annual increments that fell due during the
suspension period.
8. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present
writ petition so far as the claim of the petitioner for grant of two
annual increments for the period of her suspension, is concerned
i.e., for the increment that fell due in October, 2023 and October,
2024. As a consequence, the petitioner shall be entitled for the
arrears of salary after adding these two annual increments to the
salary of the petitioner from the date of revocation of the
suspension order till the date the order is implemented.
9. The writ petition, with the aforesaid directions, is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
16.04.2026
Lrkm
