THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.707 OF 2005 DATED 28TH JANUARY, 2010 BETWEEN R.Ramesh … Petitioner And A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.707 OF 2005 ORDER: The petitioner, an Attender in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’) is challenging its Proceeding No.E2/255(44)/2004-RM-KR dated 08.12.2004 whereby his request for sanction of Special Grade (stagnation increment) in the post of Attender with effect from 01.08.2001 instead of 01.08.2004 was rejected on the ground that he completed 12 years of active service as an Attender only by 10.10.2003. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Driver in the APSRTC on 05.03.1987. He was found medically unfit to continue as a Driver on 25.02.1991 and he was appointed as an Attender. As his pay was not protected, he filed Writ Petition No.16027 of 1996 before this Court. By Order dated 31.10.1997, W.P.No.16027 of 1996 was disposed of directing the APSRTC to treat 05.03.1987 (the date of the petitioner’s appointment as a Driver) as the date of his appointment as an Attender for the purpose of continuity of service, retirement benefits and fixation of pay on notional basis. This Court further made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears of monetary benefits. The APSRTC was directed to fix the petitioner’s pay accordingly. It is the case of the petitioner that reckoning his date of appointment as an Attender as 05.03.1987 he would be entitled to the stagnation increment in 2001. As he had been granted the stagnation increment only from 2004, he made a representation seeking sanction of the stagnation increment (Special Grade) from 01.08.2001 instead of 01.08.2004. By the impugned proceeding dated 08.12.2004, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. A perusal of the impugned proceeding reflects that the rejection was on the ground that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Attender on 11.10.1991 and would accordingly complete the requisite 12 years of service as an Attender only by 10.10.2003. The APSRTC seems to have completely overlooked the Order of this Court in W.P.No.16027 of 1996, whereby it was directed to treat ‘05.03.1987’ as the date of appointment of the petitioner as an Attender for the purpose of continuity of service, etc. In the light of the relief granted to the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, the APSRTC was bound to give effect to his appointment as an Attender from 05.03.1987 and not from 11.10.1991. Taking the date of appointment as 05.03.1987, it is manifest that the petitioner completed the requisite period of service for claiming the Special Grade (stagnation increment) from 01.08.2001, as stated by him in his representation. The action of the APSRTC in rejecting his representation ignoring the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition is therefore unsustainable. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned Proceeding No.E2/255(44)/2004-RM-KR dated 08.12.2004 and directing the APSRTC to give effect to the Special Grade payable to the petitioner in the post of Attender from 01.08.2001 instead of 01.08.2004. The amount payable pursuant to this Order shall be computed and remitted to the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 28th January, 2010. VGSR