THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.429 of 2003 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent A.P.S.R.T.C (Corporation). In substance the writ petition is filed seeking regularization of the petitioner’s service as an conductor in the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 01.07.1988 on par with his colleagues Sri G.Raj Kumar and Sri T.Narsaiah (E.Nos.301846 and 303877 respectively), whose services were regularized with effect from the said date, with all benefits of notional increments as well. The petitioner was appointed as conductor on 16.02.1987 on a temporary basis. On 07.12.1988 he was “put off duty” and on the same day he was issued a charge sheet alleging theft and unauthorized absence since 10.11.1988. Eventually, after a departmental enquiry he was removed from service by an order of the Corporation dated 18.04.1990. After pursuing departmental remedies, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court –II, Hyderabad in I.D.No.406 of 1992. By the award dated 17.03.1994, the Labour Court found the charges leveled against the petitioner without basis and found that the petitioner was neither guilty of theft as alleged nor of unauthorized absence and accordingly passed the award directing his reinstatement into duty without backwages, but with continuity of service (without a break in service). Pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated on 20.07.1994. He was initially regularized after his reinstatement to duty in the category of conductor, w.e.f. 01.08.1994. By a subsequent order dated 29.11.1997, however, his date of regularization was modified to be w.e.f. 01.07.1990. His repeated representations for regularization w.e.f. 01.07.1988 on par with his colleagues Sri G.Raj Kumar and Sri T.Narsaiah, however went unheeded and hence this writ petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation. On the two reliefs claimed in the writ petition, namely, regularization w.e.f. 01.07.1988 and grant of notional increments, the counter affidavit of the respondent Corporation pleads that the petitioner was not regularized w.e.f. 01.07.1988 as he was not on rolls as on the date of the order regularizing the services of his colleagues w.e.f. 01.07.1988. It is also pleaded that the batchmates of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.07.1988 as they were all on rolls at the time of regularization but the petitioner was out of employment. With regard to notional increments, it is contended by the Corporation that this benefit was not extended to the petitioner since no attendant benefits were allowed by the Labour Court. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents merits no acceptance by this Court. The petitioner challenged his removal from service in I.D.No.406 of 1992. By the award dated 17.03.1994 the Labour Court found the order of removal passed against the petitioner was invalid on account of there being no substance in either of the two charges i.e., of theft and of unauthorized absence. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed his reinstatement to duty without break in service, but only denied him a benefit of backwages. Once the petitioner is entitled to continuance in service on account of the specific order of the Labour Court that there shall be no break in service imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits of notional increments. Since his factual termination from service by the order dated 18.04.1990 by the Corporation was invalidated by the Labour Court, he is deemed to be continuously in service in view of the award of the Labour Court. Therefore, he is entitled to regularization of service as well on par with his colleagues Sri G.Raj Kumar and Sri T.Narsaiah as claimed in para 6 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. The reasons urged by the Corporation for denial of the benefit of regularization w.e.f 01.07.1988 and for denial of the benefits of notional increments, do not commend acceptance by this Court. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondent Corporation shall consider passing an order for regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.1988 and shall also extend to him the benefit of regularization in the category of conductor w.e.f. 01.07.1988 on par with his colleagues Sri G.Raj Kumar and Sri T.Narsaiah. There shall however no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Date: 27.01.2011 va