THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 35555 of 1998 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed by two individuals, who are working as Senior Assistants with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), challenging the orders passed by the Corporation on 12th June 1996 withdrawing two additional increments, insofar as the persons, who were appointed as Assistant Warders prior to 19th June 1976, as illegal. The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Junior Clerks, but however, when the Corporation has taken a policy decision to establish a Stores Department, the petitioners were re-categorized as Assistant Warders with effect from 9th June 1976. On 19th June 1976, the Corporation appears to have passed a resolution No. 91 of 1976 to appoint, by the method of direct recruitment, and fill up the posts of Assistant Warders. It has resolved to grant four additional increments to such of those candidates, who possess diploma qualification in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering or graduation qualification. Accordingly, 29 candidates possessing such qualifications were appointed in January and February 1977. They were all accorded four additional increments. However, such of those Assistant Warders, who had been appointed prior to 1976 with similar qualifications were granted only two increments, under the wage settlement entered into by the Corporation on 31st March 1977. That lead to filing of Writ Petition No. 3355 of 1980 by some of the Assistant Warders, who were discriminated by granting them only two increments. This Court allowed the said Writ Petition on 22nd August 1986, holding that all Assistant Warders, who are rendering similar duties and responsibilities and possessing similar qualifications, should not be discriminated in the matter of grant of four additional increments. Thereafter, on 27th April 1989, the Corporation has released the balance two additional increments to all the existing Stores personnel working as Assistant Warders between 1st January 1976 and 31st March 1977. However, on the plea that the entire matter was re- considered, the impugned order has been passed on 12th June 1996, withdrawing the said two additional increments. Hence, this Writ Petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when once a decision has been taken to grant four additional increments to such of those Assistant Warders, who possess the diploma qualification of LME/LAE and also all those who possess graduation qualification, they shall not be discriminated only on the basis of the source of recruitment. If one is recruited from the open market or from the source of internal candidates, it shall not make any difference. It was further contended that in another Writ Petition No. 36038 of 1998, decided on 15th December 2007, this Court had already taken a similar view. The Corporation would resist the case of the writ petitioners on the ground that the writ petitioners have not been recruited to the Stores Department of the Corporation and in fact, they were recruited as Junior Clerks only and they were re-categorized purely on administrative necessity and exigency and since they were not recruited to the Stores Department, they cannot compare their cases with such of those qualified candidates, who got recruited to the Stores Department. It will be relevant to notice that the Corporation, as a policy, has preferred to grant four additional increments, to such candidates who possess LME or LAE or graduation qualification and got recruited from the open market through the method of direct recruitment. Perhaps, this decision was taken by the Corporation to attract not only the best talent available in the open market, but also keeping in view the nature of work, which is required to be performed by the candidates in Stores Department. Normally, candidates possessing additional qualifications than those required would not be rewarded with additional increments. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the Corporation has noticed that the nature of duties and responsibilities liable to be performed in Stores Department were such that they require candidates with higher qualifications so that the requisite efficiency of services can be found. In such circumstances, whether an Assistant Warder is directly recruited or is based upon re-categorization, makes no difference. Although the Corporation is needed to verify as to whether the candidate possesses the LME or LAE or Graduation qualification or not. Similarly, the Corporation also cannot make any distinction between the persons recruited prior to 1st January 1976 and post 1st January 1976. There is no basis much less a valid basis for this dichotomy amongst the recruitees. It is a different thing to say that a revised scale of pay has become available for post 1st January 1976 recruitees. That will be purely an incidence of service because scales of pay of employees keep getting revised periodically, but however, when it comes to the question of granting additional incentives in the form of increments, the Corporation cannot distinguish between pre and post 1st January 1976 recruitees. If candidates possess the same set of qualifications, as noted supra, LAE or LME or graduation, all of them must get equal treatment. Failure to do so by a public sector undertaking, which answers the description of State for the purpose of Article 12, like the respondent corporation, would amount to discrimination between equals. Persons, who have been recruited by way of re-categorization, also perform the same nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Assistant Warders. Therefore, based upon the source of recruitment or the date of their recruitment, they cannot be subjected to differential treatment. That would be plainly impermissible. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. However, it shall be open to the Corporation to verify as to whether the two petitioners did possess LAE or LME or graduation qualification at the time of their re-categorization as Junior Warders in Stores Department or not. If they possess any of those qualifications, it goes without saying that they will also be entitled to the benefit of four advance increments. If it is found that they do not possess any such qualifications, then, the Corporation would be justified in recovering the additional increments paid to them erroneously. In such an event, the Corporation would recover the arrears by granting reasonable number of monthly installments for such recovery, to the petitioners. With this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 3rd December 2009 ksld