HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15721 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner, who is a Conductor in A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, questioning the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 30th July 1999, passed in M.P.No.29 of 1997 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disutes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The petitioner has joined the respondent- Corporation as a Conductor on 19th June 1983. The respondent-Corporation, as a measure of incentive, issued circular instructions, notifying for grant of stagnation increments to its employees on completion of 12 years of service. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that though he has completed 12 years of service by 19.06.1995, he was not extended the beneﬁt of stagnation increment. However, the petitioner was granted stagnation increment with eﬀect from 01.10.1996. On the ground that the stagnation increment was to be granted from 19.06.1995 i.e. on completion of 12 years of service, the petitioner herein ﬁled an application under Section 33- C (2) of the Act, claiming an amount of Rs.3,192.25 Ps., from the management. The said application was contested by the respondent-Corporation, and by the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. In this writ petition also, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason at all for not releasing the stagnation increment on expiry of 12 years of continuous service. But, however, in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension for a period of 128 days with eﬀect from 04.12.1993 to 10.04.1994, and the said period was treated as ‘Leave Without Pay’. Further, it is stated that the petitioner had suﬀered some adverse orders in the disciplinary proceedings, and in terms of paragraph 10 of the circular instructions, dated 3rd June 1989, issued in Circular No. P.D-65/1989, the petitioner was not entitled for the said beneﬁt of stagnation increment immediately after completion of 12 years. 4. Though it is the case of the petitioner that as he has completed 12 years of service by 19.06.1995, but it is stated in clear terms in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner was under suspension for a period of 128 days during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Further, Clause 10 of the circular instructions states in clear terms that the employees undergoing the punishment of deferment of increment or reduction in pay as on 30th April of that particular year, their pay will be ﬁxed in the Special Grade, based on the pay that they would have drawn had there been no punishment, and the monetary beneﬁt accruing thereof shall be allowed from the next date on completion of the punishment. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for grant of stagnation increment with eﬀect from 19.06.1995 i.e. immediately after completion of 12 years of service. In fact, the petitioner has not completed the actual service of 12 years within the meaning of the circular instructions, as he was under suspension for 128 days, apart from suﬀering adverse orders in the disciplinary proceedings. As such, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 5. Writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st August 2008 ajr