IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 33572 of 1998 Between: 1 K.V. Rama Rao, E- 52797, S/o. Papayyacharyulu, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ravulapalem Depot, East Godavari District. 2 T.Appa Rao, E- 64920 , S/o. Seetharamaiah, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Gokavaram Depot, East Godavari District. 3 R.Veeracharyulu, E- 56337, S/o. Veerabrahmam, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Eleswaram Depot, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Andhra Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad rep.by its Vicechairman and Managing Director. Hyderabad. 2 The Chief personnel Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., office of the Managing Director, Mushirabaad, Hyderabad. 3 The Accounts Officer, Office of the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 The Regional Manager , A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajahmundry Region, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Distridct. 5 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ravulapalem, Ravulapalem Depot, East Godavari District. 6 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gokavaram Depot, Gokavaram, East Godavari District. 7 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Eleswaram Depot, Eleswaram, East Godavari 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, order or direction, one preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the memorandum No. P5/544 (10)/96-PO (iv) dt. 5th March, 1997 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and the consequential action of the respondents in withdrawing the National Increment amounts from the salaries of the petitioenrs hereinas illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of hte Constitution of India besides being opposed to the principles of Natural Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : . THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 33572 OF 1998 ORDER: The action of the respondents in issuing memo dated 05.03.1997 withdrawing the notional increment amount paid to the petitioners earlier and seeking to recover the paid amount from their salaries is questioned in this writ petition as illegal and arbitrary. The question which falls for consideration in this writ petition, relates to grant of notional increments to those employees in the special grade pay scales who were promoted to higher posts. The petitioners, three in number, were all extended the benefit of being placed in the special grade scales of pay prior to issuance of the circular dated 24.05.1994. While petitioners 1 and 2 were placed in the special pay scale grade with effect from 01.05.1991, the third petitioner was extended the benefit of the special grade of pay with effect from 01.05.1992. All the petitioners were promoted, after issuance of the circular dated 24.05.1994, as temporary Deputy Superintendents in the year 1995, their services were regularized in the said post and their probation declared from February, 1997. Under the circular dated 24.05.1994 the Corporation decided that, while fixing the pay scales in the special pay, one notional increment in the lower (existing) grade would be given and the employee fixed at an appropriate stage in the special grade i.e, in the same stage if the stage existed or in the next stage above, if no such stage exited. It was made clear that the pay of such an employee, on promotion to the higher post/higher grade from the special grade, would be fixed in the promotion scale in the next stage, “without adding one notional increment in the existing special grade”. A clarification was issued, to this circular, in memo dated 15.09.1994. Under the said memo it was clarified that fixation of pay on promotion in the next stage of the promotion scale, without giving one notional increment would only be applicable to cases where promotion was given after placing employees in the special grades with effect from 01.08.1994. In effect employees, who were placed in the special grade prior to 24.05.1994, were given the benefit of one notional increment on their being placed in the special grade and it was for this reason that it was clarified that these employees would not be entitled to be extended the benefit of being given a notional increments again when they are promoted from the special grade to a higher post and that the benefit of notional increment would be limited only to those employees who were placed in the special grade after from 01.08.1994 and given promotion thereafter. Sri A.V. Seshasai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, submit that all the petitioners herein were given the benefit of notional increments on their being placed in the special grade scales of pay that on their promotion to the post of temporary Deputy Superintendent they were again given the benefit of a notional increment which the respondent corporation sought to withdraw vide memo dated 05.03.1997. It is necessary to note that the memo dated 05.03.1997 is a further clarification to the earlier circular dated 24.05.1994 and its clarification vide memo dated 15.09.1994. The second clarification in the memo dated 05.03.1997 arose on account of a doubt expressed by one of the units regarding eligibility of notional increments while fixing the pay of employees who got special grade prior to 01.08.1994 but were subsequently promoted to the higher post/higher grade after 01.08.1994. It is with a view to clarify this doubt that the Corporation had clarified that if employees who were in the special grade were promoted to a higher post/higher grade on or after 01.08.1994 they were not eligible for the benefits of notional increments while fixing the pay in the promotion/higher post. The Corporation, in effect, has restricted the benefit of one notional increment to only one particular stage. As employees, who were placed in the special grades of pay prior to the circular dated 24.05.1994, were given the benefit of notional increment on their being placed in the special grade, they were held ineligible to be extended the benefit of notional increments on their promotion to the next stage. Employees who were placed in the special grade scales after the circular dated 24.05.1994 were, in view of the clarification dated 15.09. 1994, disentitled for notional increments in the special grade scales of pay and it is only on their being promoted to the next higher post from the special grade that they were entitled to be extended the benefit of one notional increment. Giving the benefit of notional increment in the promotion posts for employees, who were placed in the special grade prior to the circular dated 24.05.1994 would, in effect, mean that they would be entitled for a double benefit of being given notional increments both in the special grade scales of pay and in the promotion post. On the other hand those employees, who were placed in the special grade scale of pay after 24.05.1994, would be entitled to be given notional increments only on their promotion to higher post and not on their being placed in the special grade. It is with a view to remove the anomaly between these two categories of employees was it clarified, in the memo dated 05.03.1997, that employees in the special grade, who were promoted to the higher post/higher grade after 01.08.1994, the (date prescribed in the circular dated 24.05.1994), were not eligible for the benefit of notional increments while fixing pay in the promotion/higher post. The clarification of the Corporation has been issued to remove the disparities between those who were placed in the special grades after 01.08.1994 and cannot, therefore, be faulted. Sri A.V. Seshasai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would further contend that the circular dated 24.05.1994 must necessarily have prospective application and would not apply to those employees who were placed in the special grade scales of pay prior to issuance of the said circular. I am afraid I cannot agree. Even if this contention of the learned Counsel is accepted and the circular is said to have prospective application, the petitioners were promoted as Deputy Superintendents only after the circular was issued and, as such, in accordance with the said circular they ought not to have been extended the benefit of notional increment on their being promoted to next higher post from the special grade. The mere fact that they were given the benefit of notional increment erroneously would not preclude the respondent corporation from rectifying its error and in recovering the notional increment erroneously paid to these categories of employees earlier. The memo dated 05.03.1997 is a general circular and is not an order specific to the petitioners herein. It is more in the nature of a policy decision of the corporation and the question of each individual, who has been given the benefit of notional increment by mistake, being put on notice before the error is rectified would not arise. It is well settled that principles of natural justice is not a mere ritual or a needless formality. It is only if the petitioner can show that he has been prejudiced thereby would the order necessitate being set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Since the interpretation placed on the circulars, and the benefits extended by the Corporation to employees in the special grade, is now found to be in order, I see no reason to set aside the action of the respondents in seeking to recover the notional increment paid by mistake to the petitioners earlier merely on the ground that they were not put on notice. Viewed from any angle, the challenge to the memo dated 05.03.1997 must fail. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 21.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VVS}