IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24858 of 2001 Between: B.Krishan, S/o. Balamallu, R/o 24-72, Kakatiyanagar, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Depot Manager, Gajwel Pragnapur Bus Depot, Pragnapoor, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action in refusing to release the 12 years stagnation increment on the ground that removal period not counted as continuous for the purpose of (12) years as arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to release the 12 years of stagnation increments from 1-8-99 onwards along with consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents : SMT. B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24858 of 2001 O R D E R : The petitioner herein is working as a Driver with A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the Corporation, dated 12.11.2001 rejecting the request of the petitioner for sanction of Special Grade Increment on the ground that he did not complete the required service for a continuous period of 12 years as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on 1.9.1987. He was placed under suspension on 14.12.1992 on the ground that he was involved in a fatal accident case. Subsequently, he was removed from the service w.e.f. 5.5.1993. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No.190 of 1993 on the file of the Labour Court-II, A.P., Hyderabad. By Award dated 21.09.1996 the Labour Court while setting aside the order of removal directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits of continuity of service and etc., however granting only 25% of back-wages. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 30.7.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Corporation to release the stagnation increment w.e.f. 1.9.1999 claiming that he had completed 12 years of service by 1.8.1999. The said request was rejected by the Corporation under the impugned order stating that by virtue of the Circular dated 11.7.1990 issued by the Corporation so far as the employees reinstated into service through the Court cases are concerned for the purposes of computation of 12 years of service for special grades only active service i.e., service spent on duty including leave with allowances rendered by the employees by deducting LWP/ Absenteeism shall be taken into account. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.11.2001, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. In M.D. RAHAMATULLAH v. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, KARIMNAGAR[1] this Court while dealing with a case based on identical facts held that the Circular dated 11.7.1990 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. This Court further held that the employee who has succeeded before the Labour Court and who has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service shall be treated on par with all other employees. Otherwise, a stigma will be attached to the employees who are reinstated by virtue of the Award of the Labour Court, if the impugned Circular is allowed to continue. It is not disputed before this Court that the view expressed in the above decision has become final and holds the field as on today. In the circumstances, it is not open to the Corporation to contend that in view of the Circular dated 11.7.1990 the period between 14.12.1992 and 30.7.1997 is liable to be deducted for the purpose of computation of 12 years of service for special grades. However, the learned counsel for the Corporation contended that even if the said period is not deducted the petitioner did not complete 12 years of service as on 1.8.1999 and he had completed the said period only on 1.2.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar disputed the said plea and contended that if the period of suspension and removal which was declared as illegal by the Labour Court in I.D.No.190 of 1993 is not deducted, the petitioner would be entitled for the special grade w.e.f. 1.8.1999. Be that as it may, since it is clear from the impugned order that while rejecting the request of the petitioner for stagnation increment, the Corporation has also taken into consideration the period from 14.12.1992 to 30.7.1997, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone and the matter requires fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for stagnation increment in terms of the Circular No.PD-65/1989, dated 3.6.1989 without deducting the period from 14.12.1992 to 30.7.1997 for the purpose of computing 12 years service and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 31-03-2009 gbs [1] 1999 (4) ALD 197