THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 9521 of 1999 Dated: 26.03.2010 Between: T.Anantha Alwar … Petitioner And The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 9521 of 1999 O R D E R : The writ petitioner joined the services of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation as a Driver in the year 1980. While working as such, he had completed Post Graduation (M.A. History). On account of acquiring the said qualification, by proceedings dated 14.08.1980, the petitioner was granted three additional increments from the date of his appointment as Driver i.e. 03.01.1980 subject to the condition that the said benefit should be enjoyed as long as he continued in the post of Driver. Subsequently, on 23.06.1988, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk. Thereafter, by order dated 18.09.1991, the additional increments were withdrawn with effect from 23.06.1988. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.514 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court, passed an award dated 11.03.1998 setting aside the impugned order dated 18.09.1991, and leaving it open to the Management to effect the stoppage of increments and to recover the amounts following the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the additional increments were restored from July, 1988 and the arrears were also paid to the petitioner. However, a show cause notice dated 27.10.1998 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the additional incentive increments should not be withdrawn from his pay with effect from 23.07.1988 i.e. the date of assuming higher responsibilities as Assistant Depot Clerk besides recovery of the amounts already paid. Though the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation, the impugned order dated 12.02.1999 came to be passed withdrawing the three additional incentive increments from the date of assuming higher responsibilities as Assistant Depot Clerk with effect from 23.06.1988 and to recover the entire excess amounts paid at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noticed that this Court had an occasion to consider an identical question in G.ASHOK V. REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., ONGOLE[1]. The petitioners therein acquired qualification of graduation while working as Conductors and therefore, they were granted three additional increments. However, after their appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, the Corporation while fixing their pay in the time scale attached to the post of Junior Assistant did not take into account, the three additional increments granted to them when they worked as Conductors. After interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, including Rule 7-A of the APSRTC Employees Service Regulations 1964 as well as the definition of “pay” under Regulation 2(x) and the definition “personal pay” under 2(xi) of the APSRTC Pay and Allowance Regulations, 1964, this Court held that the term “pay” includes personal pay and therefore, the Management is bound to take into account the personal pay i.e. the increments granted to the petitioners when they worked as Conductors when it proceeds to fix the pay of the petitioners in the time scale of the Junior Assistants. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to the Corporation to fix the pay of the petitioners therein in the time scale attached to the post of Junior Assistant taking into account the personal pay of Rs.45/- granted to them for having acquired graduate qualification when they worked as Conductors and pay the arrears to the petitioners. In light of the ratio laid down in the above decision, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s pay in the post of Assistant Depot Clerk shall be fixed taking into account the three additional increments granted to him while working as Driver. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that similar benefit was extended to two other persons namely G.Vijay and K.Ramakrishna and the additional incentive increments granted to them were continued even after their promotion as Junior Assistant and Assistant Depot Clerk respectively. The distinction sought to be drawn by the Corporation in the impugned order on the basis of a circular under which the additional increments were allowed to those who were appointed on or after 24.04.1982 does not stand judicial scrutiny as it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The further contention of the respondents that the incentive increments were granted to the petitioner with a specific condition that he shall be entitled to the said increments till he performs the duties of the Driver runs contrary to the law laid down by this Court in G.ASHOK’S case (1 supra) and cannot be accepted. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superanuation. It is also brought to my notice that in spite of the interim stay of recovery granted by this Court on 03.03.2000, the amounts payable to the petitioner towards increments were deducted from the gratuity and other retirement benefits. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 12.02.1990 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to recalculate the retirement benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to and settle the entire amounts due in terms of this order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 26.03.2010 KLP [1] 1999 LAB . I.C. 3033