HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10661 of 2010 Dated: 31-05-2010 Between: K.V.S.Reddy. … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Cantonment Depot, Secunderabad & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10661 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, declaring the order, dated 27.11.2009, passed by the 1st respondent-Depot Manager in Order No.P2/785(1)/09 CNT, for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,82,427/- from the salary of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 04.06.1989, while he was driving the bus bearing No.AAZ- 5673, it met with an accident. Alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension from 27.07.1989. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an industrial dispute in I.D.No.318 of 1999. The Labour Court, observing that the charge of rash and negligent driving was not proved, by its Award, dated 03.07.2001, has directed for reinstatement of petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages and attendant benefits. After reinstatement, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.22999 of 2002, seeking for fixation of his pay by granting notional increments for the period during which he was kept under suspension. A learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petition by an order, dated 18.11.2002, and directed for grant of notional increments. Pursuant to the said directions, notional increments were granted to the petitioner, but the matter was carried in appeal by the Corporation by filing W.A.No.650 of 2007. By an order, dated 21.09.2007, a Division Bench of this Court, allowed the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench, the impugned orders are passed, for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,82,427/- at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month in 45 instalments and an amount of Rs.2,427/- as 46th instalment, from the salary of the petitioner with effect from December 2009. Hence, this writ petition. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the orders, dated 21.09.2007, passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.650 of 2007. It is further contended that without issuing prior notice, the respondent-Corporation has straight away initiated the recovery proceedings, by passing the impugned order, dated 27.11.2009. From a perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.650 of 2007, it is evident that the petitioner was represented by a Counsel in the said writ appeal, and as such, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the said orders. Since the impugned order is passed pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.650 of 2007, the petitioner cannot independently question the validity of the said order. Since the amounts paid to the petitioner pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge, are sought to be recovered through the impugned order in view of the directions of the Division Bench, prior notice, as contended by the petitioner, need not be given. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference of this Court. However, while taking cognisance of the statement of the learned counsel for petitioner that his client was already given the benefit of notional increments, the Division Bench, in its order dated 21.09.2007, passed in W.A.No.650 of 2007, has directed that if the petitioner makes any representation to the respondent-Corporation against the recovery of amount already paid, then the same be sympathetically considered and decided. Therefore, I also keep it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent-Corporation for modification of the impugned recovery proceedings, and if any such representation is made, the respondents may consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st May 2010 ghn/ajr