A writ of mandamus seeking annual service increments will not survive where, during the pendency of litigation and pursuant to court orders, the benefit is already granted. The judgment upholds the practice of closing writ petitions as infructuous in such cases. Directly impacts public service and employment law cases in Andhra Pradesh, with binding value for subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/27906/2016 of Ch.Venkateswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010812792016 |
| Date of Registration | 18-08-2016 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Service / Employment Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ for mandamus to grant annual increments survives once the relief sought is granted during litigation. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The purpose of the writ petition was the release of withheld annual increments to the petitioner. The court, on being informed that increments were already released pursuant to interim orders, held the cause did not survive. Absence of opposition or pending issues from petitioner’s side further justified closure. The court affirmed that when the principal relief is granted during litigation, the writ becomes infructuous, but liberty may be reserved for future grievances. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner challenged the non-release of annual increments, alleging violation of Article 14 and service regulations. During the pendency, the respondents released the increments following interim orders. Upon confirmation of compliance, and with no contest from petitioner’s side, court closed proceedings as no further orders were necessary. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in service law writs where interim reliefs have been granted |
| Follows | Well-established principle that writs are rendered infructuous if relief is granted during proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and operationalises the principle that writ petitions are rendered infructuous when relief is granted during the pendency of the case.
- Recognises litigant’s liberty to initiate fresh action if a new cause arises, even if present proceedings are closed as infructuous.
- Lawyers in service matter writs should ensure timely updates to the court if the substantive relief is granted during litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court confirmed that the petitioner’s grievance was addressed as annual increments had been released following interim court orders.
- With the main relief granted, and in the absence of opposition or pending issues from the petitioner, the court held the writ had become infructuous.
- No further judicial intervention was warranted, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.
- The judgment leaves the door open for the petitioner to approach the court again in the event of any future grievance (fresh cause of action).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No representation was made for petitioner at the time of hearing.
Respondent
- Submitted that, pursuant to court’s interim orders, the petitioner’s withheld annual increments had been released on 07.03.2017.
- Asserted that the primary grievance no longer survived and the writ should be closed as infructuous.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a public sector employee, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus challenging the non-release of annual increments during his service. He contended this denial violated Article 14 of the Constitution and Service Regulations, especially since similarly situated employees received the increments. During the litigation, interim court orders led to the release of the claimed benefits, and there was no longer a contest at the time of final hearing.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment was delivered in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Writ jurisdiction).
- Considered the application of Article 14 (Equality before law) in service matters.
- Noted the relevance of service regulations concerning increment entitlement, but did not interpret or modify their content since relief was already granted.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural innovations introduced; followed settled principle regarding infructuous writ petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principles about writs becoming infructuous after grant of relief are affirmed.