IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21565 of 2000 Between: L.Madhava , S/o Appa Rao, R/o D.No.9-17-5/2, Amarnagar, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep By Its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep By Its Depot Manager, Gajuwaka Depot, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not adding yearly Increments to my basic pay and paying less pay not adding 8 Increments to my basic and there by causing by loss to my salary unjust, illegal and arbitrary against to the to the principal of natural justice contrary to the Regulations of the Corporation and as such direct the Respondents herein to Reﬁx my pay by duly adding 8 due Increments forthwith and to pay the arrears in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court May deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 21565 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not releasing certain increments to him, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent- Corporation on 15th February 1989. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner, it is submitted that he has suﬀered some adverse orders in the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in withholding and stoppage of certain increments. It is his case that even after implementing the said adverse orders, he is still entitled for certain increments, which have not been released to him. Hence, this writ petition. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that certain annual increments of the petitioner were not released on account of series of adverse orders suﬀered by him one after another, which resulted in imposing the punishment of stoppage of increments. In the counter aﬃdavit, particulars are given with regard to the orders passed by the disciplinary authority on 11 diﬀerent occasions, withholding the increments of the petitioner. As per the stand taken in the counter affidavit, no increment is due to be paid to the petitioner by the time the writ petition was filed. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has suﬀered a series of adverse orders in the disciplinary proceedings, wherein stoppage of increments was ordered. As stated in the counter aﬃdavit, it appears that on more than ten occasions the petitioner has suﬀered adverse orders, but however, the copies of such orders are not placed before this Court so as to examine the aﬀect of such orders. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the increments that are due to be released to the petitioner, are illegally withheld. 5. Since the aﬀect of adverse orders on the increments which are otherwise due to the petitioner is not examined, I permit the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent, giving details of the increments which are due to him, and he shall also give the relevant dates on which such increments fell due, and shall also enclose with his representation, the adverse orders suﬀered by him in the disciplinary proceedings. If such representation is ﬁled within a period of three weeks from today, the 2 nd respondent shall look into the matter and consider whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of any annual increments even after implementing the orders passed by the disciplinary authority. If he ultimately comes to the conclusion that certain increments are due to be released to the petitioner, further steps shall be taken in accordance with law. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th November 2008 ajr