HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.15544 of 2000 Date: 25-3-2011 Between A.R.Reddy … Petitioner and 1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.15544 of 2000 Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring that Proceedings No.E2/785(2)/97-WM.N dated 11-8-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by non-application of mind as being contrary to Regulation No.9 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pay and Allowances Regulations, 1964 and to declare that the writ petitioner is entitled for pay protection as Machanic Grade-I. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that initially he was appointed as Mechanic Grade-II in Zonal Workshop at Cuddapah with effect from 20-7-1977 and by proceedings dated 10-01-1978 issued by the respondents-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) his services as Mechanic Grade-II were regularized. By proceedings dated 22-12-1978 his probation was also declared as Mechanic Grade-II and by proceedings dated 22-12-1979 the petitioner was promoted as Mechanic Grade-I and by another proceedings dated 08-5-1980 and 21-7-1980 his services were regularized and confirmed as Mechanic Grade-I, respectively. Subsequently, at the request of the petitioner by proceedings dated 16- 5-1994 he was posted to Zonal Workshop at Nellore on loss of seniority. Even as Mechanic Grade-II, the petitioner is entitled for protection of pay as per Regulation No.9 as the transfer from one administrative unit to another even on the request is not a reversion. While so, the 2nd respondent herein has issued a notice dated 04-4- 2000 fixing his pay in Grade-II and the same was communicated to him on 28-7-2000 and he submitted an explanation on 02-8-2000. The 2nd respondent herein has passed final order on 11-8-2000 without meeting the contentions raised by him and imposed an order of recovery. 3. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.3196 of 1996 questioning the proceedings dated 06-02-1996 and to declare that he is entitled for pay protection as Mechanic Grade-I and this Court at the stage of admission granted stay of recovery and after filing of a counter by the respondents-Corporation, passed final order dated 27-02-1998 setting aside the impugned proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Thus, the petitioner has raised a pertinent issue even in the earlier writ petition stating that medically unfit drivers while being appointed as cleaners are being given the protection of pay and the same is not denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The Regulations of the Corporation support the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 11-8-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is further entitled for protection of pay as Mechanic Grade-I. 5. The respondents-Corporation filed a Counter-Affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and further contended that the petitioner was appointed as Mechanic Grade-II in the Corporation with effect from 20-7-1977 and was attached to Regional Workshop, Cuddapah. Subsequently, he was promoted as Mechanic Grade-I. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation requesting to transfer him to the Regional Workshop, Nellore and gave an undertaking that he will forego his seniority in the Regional Workshop at Cuddapah and to become junior most Mechanic Grade-II in the Regional Workshop at Nellore. The representation of the petitioner was considered and he was transferred to Regional Workshop, Nellore by order dated 16-5-1994. It was also made clear in the transfer order that his seniority shall be reckoned from the date he reports for duty at Regional Workshop, Nellore. As such the seniority of the petitioner was fixed in the post of Mechanic Grade-II in December, 1995. The petitioner was paid an excess amount of Rs.1,501=10 ps., for the period from 25-3-1994 to November, 1995. Therefore, by an order dated 06-02-1996 the excess amount paid was sought to be recovered. 6. Aggrieved by the said recovery order the petitioner filed W.P.No.3196 of 1996. This Court has stayed the order of recovery and finally disposed of the matter by an order dated 27-02-1998 without going into the merits of the case and considering that there was no notice before the order of recovery and set aside the said order giving liberty to the Corporation to issue a notice and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, in pursuance of the said order in W.P.No.3196 of 1996 the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 15-10- 1998. After the petitioner submitted his explanation on 05-11-1998 he was issued with a letter dated 04-4-2000 stating that the recovery is inevitable as per the fixation of his pay in the post of Mechanic Grade-II and if he wants to go back to his original place as Mechanic Grade-I, he will be permitted and his pay will be fixed. Finally, the order dated 11-8-2000 was issued effecting recovery of an amount of Rs.1,501=10 ps. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner has been fixed in November, 1995 in the cadre of Mechanic Grade-II duly reckoning his seniority from the date he reported for duty at Regional Workshop, Nellore. Therefore, the order of recovery through proceedings dated 11-8-2000 is just and proper. The petitioner is not entitled for pay fixation in the cadre of Mechanic Grade-I as per Regulation 9 and the very Regulation is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The point for consideration is, whether the proceedings dated 11-8-2000 in No.E2/785(2)/96-WM.N issued by the 2nd respondent is contrary to Regulation 9 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Pay and Allowances) Regulations, 1964 ? 9. Point:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Regulation 9, the petitioner is entitled for protection of the pay even when he was designated as Mechanic Grade-II and the transfer from one administrative unit to another unit on request is not a reversion and therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent are illegal and arbitrary, and are liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that on the request of the petitioner only he was transferred to Regional Workshop, Nellore and he also gave an undertaking that he will forego his seniority in Regional Workshop, Cuddapah and will become junior most Mechanic Grade-II in Regional Workshop, Nellore. On his undertaking only he was transferred to Nellore by an order dated 16-5-1994. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent are just and proper. 11. Since both parties are relying on the Regulations of the Corporation, it is relevant to extract Regulation 9, which deals with the protection of pay under controversy, which is as follows: “9.(1) The initial pay of an employee holding a post when appointed to another post on a different time scale of pay shall be regulated as specified below: (a) Where the promotion to the new post involves the assumption of duties of greater importance that those attaching to the post held by him at the time of such promotion, his initial pay in the time scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay notionally arrived, at, by increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by one increment at the stage, at which such pay has accrued. (c)(i) Provided that if he either previously held substantively or officiated in the same post or a permanent or temporary post in the same time scale, then the initial pay shall not be less than the pay which he was drawing on the last such occasion, and he shall count for increments the period, if any, during which he drew that pay on such last occasion and any previous occasions for increments in the stage of the time scale equivalent to that pay, if however, the pay last drawn by the employee in a temporary post has been inflated by the grant of premature increments, the pay which he would have drawn but for the grant of those increments shall, unless otherwise ordered by the authority competent to create the new post, be taken for the purposes of this provision to be the pay which he has last drawn in the temporary post.” 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as Mechanic Grade-II in Regional Workshop, Cuddapah, his services were regularized as Mechanic Grade-II and probation also was declared as Mechanic Grade-II. He was also promoted as Mechanic Grade-I and his services were also regularized and confirmed as Mechanic Grade-I in the year 1980. It is also an admitted fact that in the year 1994 at the request of the petitioner only he was transferred to Regional Workshop, Nellore as Mechanic Grade-I. The transfer of the petitioner on his request cannot be treated as reversion, as was contended by the petitioner. 13. As per Regulation 9(1) of the Regulations of the Corporation, if the initial pay of an employee holding a post when appointed to another post on a different time scale of pay shall be regulated as per Clauses (1)(a) and (c)(i) of the Regulations. In the instant case, the petitioner was admittedly promoted as Mechanic Grade-II in the year 1980 itself and his services were regularized subsequently and he was also give time scale of pay as Mechanic Grade-I. The impugned proceedings dated 11-8-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent clearly shows that since the petitioner was transferred to Regional Workshop, Nellore on his request and on his undertaking that he will become the junior most in the cadre of Mechanic Grade-II, his pay was fixed in the post of Mechanic Grade-II only and the arrears of excess amount paid from 25-3-1994 to November, 1995 i.e., Rs.1,501=10 ps. was ordered to be recovered from the salary in 15 instalments. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice for recovery of the excess amount of Rs.1,501=10 ps. as per the orders of this Court, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation. He was also given another notice whether to continue at Nellore with fixation of pay as applicable to Mechanic Grade-II or whether he opt to go back to Cuddapah as Mechanic Grade-I, for which also the petitioner gave reply without mentioning these points. Therefore, considering the entire case and the evidence available on record, the impugned order dated 11-8-2000 was passed. 14. When the petitioner gave an undertaking that he will forego his seniority in Regional Workshop, Cuddapah if his request for transfer is considered to Regional Workshop, Nellore, even after reporting to duty at Nellore he will be continued as junior most Mechanic Grade-II at Regional Workshop, Nellore and he cannot get the same pay and allowances, which he was getting while holding the post of Mechanic Grade-I at Regional Workshop, Cuddapah. Therefore, Regulation 9 of the Regulations of the Corporation is not applicable to the petitioner in view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner himself that he will forego seniority in the event of his transfer to Regional Workshop, Nellore. 15. For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to declare the impugned proceedings dated 11-8-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 16. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances, no costs. _____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO, J. 25th March, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Petition No.15544 of 2000 (P.D. order) 25th March, 2011.