IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20117 of 2000 Between: Mohd. Quasim (E. 73889) S/o. Shaikh Meera Bhanswada Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bhanswada, Nizamabad District ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Regional Manager Nizamabad District. 2 Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bhanswada Depot, Bhanswada, Nizamabad 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus - (1) declaring the action of the Respondents in not Counting the Petitioner's Seniority with effect from the date of his appointment i.e. from 15-2-1978, and in not granting stagnation increment accordingly as illegal and arbitrary; (2) direct the respondents to count Petitioner's Seniority with effect from the date of his appointment i.e. from 15-2-1978 consequently grant stagnation Increment accordingly with effect from 1993 and re-fix the petitioner's pay. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. B.G. Uma Devi The Court made the following Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not counting his seniority from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. with effect from 15-02-1978, as illegal and arbitrary and also seeks directions for grant of stagnation increment on completion of twelve years of service from the aforesaid date. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as driver on 15-02-1978 in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and posted at Barkathpura depot. Thereafter, he was transferred to Zaheerabad depot on 17-05- 1978 and further transferred to Kamareddy depot (Nizamabad area subdivision) on 24-11-1979. It is his case that as much as he was posted at Kamareddy depot in view of exercise of option on formation of Kakatiya region, he is entitled for seniority in the category of drivers, from 15-02-1978. It is also his case that he was to be granted stagnation increments in view of 12 years continuous service from 15- 02-1978. 3. The Law Officer of APSRTC has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner was initially appointed on 15-02-1978 in Barkathpura depot and subsequently transferred on administrative grounds to Zaheerabad depot. It is stated that he was transferred from Zaheerabad depot to Nizamabad sub-area vide Office Order No.E3/633(117)/79-PD, dated 27-08-1979, at his request, subject to foregoing his seniority in the station to which is transferred. It is stated that as the petitioner has reported at Kamareddy on 24-11-1979, his seniority in the cadre of drivers has been fixed from the said date. It is also stated that, by counting his service from the year 1979, special grade increment was granted to him from 01-05-1992, vide office order dated 01-09-1992. 4. Although it is alleged by the petitioner that he was transferred to Kamareddy depot (Nizamabad sub-area) in view of exercise of option on formation of Kakatiya region, but, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the said allegation is denied. It is stated therein that the petitioner was transferred from Zaheerabad depot to Kamareddy depot, which is in Nizamabad sub-area on 24-11-1979, subject to the condition that he should forego his seniority. No material is placed before this court to show that the petitioner was posted at Kamareddy depot based on the option exercised by him on formation of Kakatiya region as alleged by the petitioner. As the petitioner was transferred from Zaheerabad depot to Kamareddy depot on his own request, he was rightly granted stagnation increments on completion of twelve years of service, calculating his service from 24-11-1979. As the transfer was sought by the petitioner voluntarily, he cannot claim seniority from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. from 15-02-1978. 5. At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stagnation increments which were granted with effect from 01-05-1992 were subsequently withdrawn. However, the same is not the subject matter of this writ petition and therefore the said issue cannot be gone into. If the petitioner is of the view that the said increment is wrongly withdrawn, it is open to him to question the same by way of an appropriate petition. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances without any order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. February 25, 2009 MRR