THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Appeal No.421 of 2010 Date: 02-02-2011 Between Bakar Ali … Appellant/Petitioner and APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 3 others … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Appeal No.421 of 2010 Judgment: (per V.Suri Appa Rao, J.) This writ appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the impugned order dated 10-3-2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13028 of 2009. 2. The appellant-petitioner filed W.P.No.13028 of 2009 seeking a Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent-The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad district in not calculating the back wages duly adding the notional increments for the period he was out of service as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Proceedings No.Peshi/402(1)/94-RM: NZB dt.11-4-2008 passed by the 2nd respondent-The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad and consequently, to direct the respondents-Corporation to pay the back wages by adding the notional increments for the period he was out of service along with 18% interest from the due date. By the said order, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was reviewed, by dropping the postponement of annual increment for a period of two years, which would have effect on future increments. It has been further stated that the period out of service was treated as continuity of service and that the petitioner is entitled to notional increments for the period out of service and he is also entitled for back wages for the period out of service from the date of removal, i.e. from 15-9-1992 to the date of reinstatement, i.e. April, 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while calculating the back wages, notional increments have not been added for the period the petitioner was out of service. It is further contended that as per Regulation 21 of the respondents-Corporation, the petitioner is also entitled for back wages from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement into service i.e., from September, 1992 to April, 1996 along with the notional increments duly taking into consideration of the Revision of Pay Scales w.e.f. 01-4-1993. 4. For the purpose of deciding the controversy, it is relevant to extract Regulation 21 of the respondents-Corporation, which reads as follows: “21. Pay, allowances and treatment of service on reinstatement: (1) When an employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order as to- (a) the pay and allowances which shall be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as period spent on duty. (2)(a) where such competent authority holds that the employee has been fully exonerated or, in the case of suspension, that it was unjustifiable, the employee shall be granted the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.” 5. Relying on the above Regulation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the notional increments for the period he was out of service. 6. As per the above Regulation, the petitioner is only entitled to the back wages for the period of his absence from duty but he is not entitled for the addition of notional increments for calculating the back wages for the period he was out of service. 7. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the back wages paid to the petitioner are in accordance with the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11-4- 2008 and hence, the action of the respondents in calculating the back wages cannot be found fault with. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was paid back wages in this case. The petitioner contended that while calculating the back wages notional increments have not been added for the period for which he was out of service. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 11-4-2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was paid Rs.2,50,175/- towards back wages for the period out of service by adding notional increments. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any addition of notional increments on back wages. 10. Similar question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul Kareem[1]. In the said case, the appellant passed an order dated 17-5-2000 stating that the respondent would not be eligible for notional increments from the date of his removal from service. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred Writ Petition before this Court assailing the order dated 17-5-2000. In the said Writ Petition the respondent inter alia prayed for granting of notional increments for the period from 01-5-1975 to 10-6-1993. The learned single Judge, following the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P.Nageshwar Rao, 2001 (4) ALD 568, directed the Corporation that the pay of the respondent should be fixed by taking into consideration the notional increments. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment held as under: “11. … … … There is no specific direction that the employee would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Therefore, in the absence of specific direction in that regard, merely because an employee has been directed to be reinstated without back-wages, he could not claim a benefit of increments notionally earned during the period when he was not on duty or during the period when was out of service. It would be incongruous to suggest that an employee, having been held guilty and remained absent from duty for a long time, continues to earn increments though there is no payment of wages for the period of absence. 12. In view of what has been stated above, both the learned single Judge and Division Bench had erred in law in allowing the benefit of increments notionally to the employee during the period when he was out of service. Both the orders in C.A.No.7797 of 2003 are set aside.” 12. In the above case also, there was no specific direction that the employee would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employees cannot claim notional increments during the period of absence. 13. In the instant case, the petitioner was paid back wages in terms of the order dated 11-4-2008, which has become final. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any addition of notional increments on the back wages. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kareem’s case (supra), we are of the view that there are no merits in the writ appeal and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. _____________________ V.SURI APPA RAO, J. 02nd February, 2011. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Appeal No.421 of 2010 (P.D. judgment of the Division Bench prepared by VSAR, J.) 02nd February, 2011. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO Writ Appeal No.421 of 2010 (P.D. judgment of the Division Bench prepared by VSAR, J.) Circulated to Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao for perusal. [1] A. I. R. 2005 SUPREME COURT 3791