IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 21001 of 2000 Between: N.Hariram S/o. Seetha Rama rao H.No.6-3-117/T, Gandhinagar, Ramagiri, Nalgonda ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Depot Manager Nalgonda 2 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Depot Manager Nalgonda Region & District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or writ specially Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not ﬁxing the salary of the petitioner by computing notional increments as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the Respondents to compute the periodical increments that would have been earned by the petitioner during the out of service and fix the pay accordingly and also to pay arrears of pay and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who was working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short –‘the Corporation’) seeks, by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in not ﬁxing his salary by computing the notional increments as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct them to ﬁx his pay by computing the notional increments and to pay the arrears. The case of the petitioner is that while he was discharging duties as a Conductor on 24-03-1988 on the route Nalgonda-Gudivada-Suryapet, a check had been exercised and on the alleged cash and ticket irregularities disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and, after conducting an enquiry, he was removed from service on 31-10-1988. The petitioner challenged the order of his removal from service by way of an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.168 of 1989, which was later re-numbered as I.D.No.303 of 1992, and by the Award dated 27-03-1993, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal from service and directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service without back wages and without attendant beneﬁts. It is relevant to extract the operative portion of the Award passed by the Labour Court- III, Hyderabad. “In the result, the Award is passed by setting aside the removal order dated 31-10-1988 directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith on publication of the award with continuity of service in a measure of punishment the increments accrued from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement shall be deducted as if not accrued in the service. On reinstatement the Pay shall be re-ﬁxed by deducting the increments that would accrued in between period of suspension till the date of reinstatement. In the reinstatement is with a black-mark is service the question of awarding back-wages does not arise and it cannot be an automatic one also. Even otherwise under the rule ‘no work no pay’ he is entitled for any back- wages. He shall be paid with regular wages and attendant benefits soon after reinstatement.” In this writ petition, the only ground raised by the learned counsel for petitioner is that in view of the beneﬁt of continuity of service granted by the Labour Court, the respondent-Corporation ought to have ﬁxed the pay of the petitioner by extending the beneﬁt of notional increments from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. The said question is no more a res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of I.LAXMA REDDY vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. AND OTHERS [1]. A reading of the said judgment makes it clear that merely because the beneﬁt of continuity of service is given, an employee would not automatically become entitled to the beneﬁt of notional increments for the period for which he was out of service. Therefore, unless there is a speciﬁc direction extending the beneﬁt of notional increments, an employee cannot claim notional increments while ﬁxing his pay consequent upon reinstatement. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 04th November 2008 CVRK [1] 2007(13) SCALE 383