IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24548 OF 2009 Between: B.Ram Reddy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region, at Mahaboobnagar and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24548 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “………this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not allowing the 12 years Special Grade/Stagnation Increment to the petitioners with effect from their completion of 12 years of services rendered in their respective posts of irrespective of regions of the APSRTC and without proper fixation w.e.f their completion of 12 years of services in their posts as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to effect or count the 12 years Special Grade/Stagnation increment to the petitioners with effect from their completion of 12 years of services in their posts irrespective of the regions they served in APSRTC and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.” When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2151 of 2005, dated 22.08.2006 wherein the Division Bench held as under: “…………The settlement and the circular contemplate that the pay will be fixed notionally from the date of eligibility but the monetary benefit will be allowed consequent on such pay fixation w.e.f. 1.4.2005 only. Therefore having regard to such agreed specific term as contained in the settlement, the pay of an employee shall be fixed notionally from the date of eligibility and the monetary benefit consequent on such pay fixation shall be paid from 1.4.2005. It is needless to mention that common settlement which is entered into between the employees and the management under sub section 3 of Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act, will have a total binding on both the management as well as employees and therefore, the question of overlapping the agreement entered into between the management and the union, does not arise nor is permissible. Further having regard to such a restriction as to such entitlement, it is not open for any of the employees to call back and claim the monetary benefit for such an entire period or any period prior to 1.4.2005 as agreed to in the said settlement. But, these aspects as to the existence of settlement and consequent circular which has reiterated the terms agreed to between the parties, have not come up for consideration before either of the aforesaid two Division Benches nor the settlement following up circular is subsequent to both the said decisions. Therefore the entitlement of any such monetary benefit for the period prior to 1.4.2005, as held in the aforesaid two decisions, cannot be a valid proposition and it automatically gets superceded by the settlement as stated above and the benefit restricted w.e.f. 1.4.2005. However, since the settlement and the circular are only subsequent events which took place subsequent to the aforesaid two decisions, the same are binding on the respondent. In view of the aforesaid settlement and the following circular, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioner is entitled to the monetary benefit only from 1.4.2005, but not prior thereto.” The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation has not disputed the fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated. Accordingly, following the Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.2151 of 2005, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to fix the scale of the petitioner notionally from the date of his eligibility and to make necessary payment in terms of the circular dated 04.06.2005. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 20.11.2009 Ivd