IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 15362 of 2000 BETWEEN: 1 K.Prabhakara Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 2 D.Srinivasa Rao S/o.Narasimha Rao,Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District 3 K.V.B. Aachari S/o.Lingachary, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District 4 K. Prasada Rao S/o.Adiseshaiah, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District 5 P. Subba Rao S/o.Seshaiah, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District 6 Nara Hanumantha Rao S/o.Venkaiah, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District 7 Sk. Karimulla S/o.Subhani Saheb, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District 8 N.K.M. Raju S/o.Subba rao, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District 9 B. Ramamohan Rao S/o.Venkateswarlu, Ongole Depot Ongole, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Prakasam Region Ongole Prakasam District. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ongole District Prakasam Region Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to fix notional increments with prospective effect in pursuant to proceedings dt.11.5.99 in No.P2/255(4)/99-OGL by sanctioning notional increments as per Regulation-11 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Pay and Allowances) Regulations, 1964 and to declare the inaction as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Regulation-11 of A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Pay and Allowances) Regulations, 1964 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem think fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners who are working as Drivers in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), seek directions for grant of notional increments while fixing their pay pursuant to the orders dated 11th May 1999, passed in Proceedings No.P2/255(4)/99-OGL. 2. The petitioners herein were initially appointed as Drivers in APSRTC in the year 1985, but however, their services were regularized from 1st August 1996. Earlier, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.26610 of 1998, seeking directions against the respondents to extend the benefit of regularization and seniority from the date of their initial appointment. A learned single Judge of this Court has directed to effect regularization from the date of their initial appointment and also directed to extend all benefits, pecuniary or otherwise. But however, on appeal filed by the Corporation in Writ Appeal No.31 of 1999, the said judgment was modified declaring that the petitioners were not entitled for any backwages on account of regularization from the date of their initial appointment. 3. In this writ petition, again the petitioners seek directions for giving of notional increments to them in terms of Regulation 11 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Pay and Allowances) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). Through the proceedings dated 11.05.1999 issued in Proceedings No.P2/255(4)/97-OGL, the services of all the petitioners were regularized from the dates of their initial appointments on various dates in the month of May 1985. It is not known from the affidavit as to what is the cut- off date for release of increments in a year of service. No such particulars are furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. More over, in the earlier orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.26610 of 1998, there was only a direction for regularization from the date of initial appointment. The question relating to release of increments will arise only after one is appointed to regular service of the Corporation. Merely because regularization was ordered from the date of initial appointment for the benefit of continuity of service, in the absence of regular appointment as per the service Regulations of the Corporation, the petitioners cannot claim any increments. Therefore, the benefit as mentioned in Regulation 11 of the Regulations, cannot be made applicable for grant of relief as prayed for by the petitioners. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th November 2008 ajr