IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19776 of 2000 Between: M.A.Majid(E.33143), S/o M.A. Sattar, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bhainsa Depot, Bhainsa, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Executive Director, Karimnagar Zone, Karimnagar. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adilabad Region, Adilabad. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bhanisa Depot, Bhanisa, Adilabad 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 a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- (i) declaring the action of the respondents in not effecting petitioner's promotions, atleast on par with his junior, Mr.A.Rajanna(E.33153), including promotion as TI-II w.e.f. 30-10-1998 as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) Consequently, direct the respondents to effect petitioner's promotions, on par with his junior, Shri A.Rajanna (E.33153) including promotion as TI-II w.e.f. 30-10-1998, duly granting all other consequential benefits; & pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus in not giving promotion to him on par with his Junior A.Rajanna as Traffic Inspector-II on 30.10.1998. 2) In this case, it is not in dispute that though the petitioner and other person by name A.Rajanna were appointed on the same date i.e., on 01.10.1969, yet, the petitioner was removed from service on disciplinary measure after conducting enquiry in the year 1971. When the petitioner has raised Industrial Dispute, he was re-instated into service in view of the settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act. As per the settlement, he was reinstated with continuity of service, but, without any back wages. 3) In this Writ Petition, he claims promotion, on par with A.Rajanna, only on the ground that as he was given benefit of continuity of service. As such, there is no reason for depriving the benefit of promotion. But, the said question is no more res integra in view of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd., V. K.P.Agrawal[1]. The Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with several other aspects with regard to the back wages, when the termination is set aside, in the para-19 of the Judgment held and that even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for the purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc. In view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment, the petitioner was admittedly terminated from service for about 15 years and promotions were effected in favour of A.Rajanna as he was continuously in service. In view of the continuity of service given under the settlement, in the light of the Judgment referred above, the petitioner cannot claim any promotions on par with A.Rajanna. 4) As no other question arises for consideration, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J JANUARY 29, 2009 KSH/MRR [1] (2007) 2 SCC-433