A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court led by Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra directed the State government to file a counter affidavit with regard to the 11th Pay Revision Commission (PRC) recommendations within three weeks, and ordered that there be no recovery from the allowances of any employee during the course of the implementation of the G.O. Ms. No.1, through which the Revised Pay Scales 2022 (RPS) were notified on January 17.
The case would again be heard on February 23.
Advocate-General S. Sriram appeared for the State, while advocate P. Ravi Teja represented A.P. Gazetted Officers’ JAC chairman K.V. Krishnaiah, who had challenged the validity of the G.O.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Justice Mishra said the argument that the alleged non-disclosure of reports of the PRC and that the Committee of Secretaries was against the principles of natural justice ought to be looked into mainly due to the employees’ apprehension that the impugned G.O. would result in reduction of their gross/net salaries vide Rule No. 10 of the above G.O.
Having taken note of a submission made by the Advocate-General that there would be no cut in the salaries and the total emoluments would rather increase, Mr. Justice Mishra granted interim relief to the petitioner that there would be no recovery from the allowances drawn by the employees.
In the first instance, Mr. Justice Mishra asked if Mr. Ravi Teja was seeking a direction to allow the employees to go on strike, to which the counsel replied that his client was only aggrieved with the secretive manner in which the RPS were fixed.
After passing the order, the CJ questioned whether the employees would still resort to strike, and observed that when delicate matters (like the PRC) were in the process of adjudication, there should be some decorum, and went on to note that the courts would be under pressure when agitations take place. “Strike is not an answer to any problem,” he asserted.
Also, drawing the A-G’s attention to the reference of the petition to a Division Bench initially, then to a single judge and again to the Division Bench headed by him, Mr. Justice Mishra said he did not like such “bench-hunting.”
