IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 1159 of 2005 Between: 1. S.V. Subba Reddy, S/o. SV Reddy, E-253682 Working at Pulivendula Depot and are R/o. Pulivendula, Kadapa District. 2. P. Adinarayana Reddy, S/o. Gangi Reddy, E-401383 Working at Pulivendula Depot and are R/o. Pulivendula, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The APSRTC rep by its Regional Manager, Kadapa Region, Kadapa. 2 The APSRTC rep by its Depot Manager, Pulivendula, Kadapa 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 maybe 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 granting the selection grade scale Stagnation increment to the petitioners on completion of 12 years service is illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to well established principles of law and as such set aside the same by directing the respondents herein to add the Stagnation increment to all the petitioners on completion of 12 years of service irrespective of their transfer from the date of service irrespective of their transfer from the date of initial appointment and to pay the arrears by re-fixing the pay of all the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2 are working in the respondent-corporation. The counsel for the petitioners contends that they have been working continuously for more than 12 years. Therefore, they are entitled to get stagnation increments on completion of 12 years of service. It is his further contention that though they made representations for release of stagnation increments, their requests were not considered. The petitioners therefore, approached this court seeking to declare that they are entitled for stagnation increments on completion of 12 years of service, which they had already completed long prior to the date of the writ petition. A similar question arose for consideration in W.P. No.5726 of 2000 and it was also considered in writ Appeal No. 1301 of 2000 by a Division Bench of this Court which was preferred against the order in the above writ petition and the Division Bench held that the employees, who have completed 12 years of service in the same category irrespective of their transfers, are entitled for stagnation increments and accordingly, directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 5726 of 2000. In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioners and in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in the above Writ Appeal, the respondents are directed to examine whether the petitioners have completed the period of 12 years in the same category irrespective of their transfer and on satisfying that they completed 12 years of service, extend them the benefit of the stagnation increment and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J Dated:31.01.2005 Ccm Copy to: 1. The Regional Manager, The APSRTC, Kadapa Region, Kadapa. 2. The Depot Manager, The APSRTC, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. 3. 2 CD copies.